Skip to main content

Full text of "The Homosexual Agenda - Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today"

See other formats


ALAN SEARS & CRAIG OSTEN 



“Love is the greatest power in the world, and Alan Sears and Craig 
Osten deal with a very delicate subject in The Homosexual Agenda in 
a spirit of tough love. The message of this book is must-reading for 
every concerned American.” 

— Bill Bright, Founder and Chairman 
Campus Crusade for Christ 

“The Alliance Defense Fund is doing a wonderful work in defending 
religious liberty and preserving the rights of Christian people.” 

— Dr. James Dobson, Author and 
Founder of Focus on the Family 

“If any right-thinking American has found the gay and lesbian 
agenda difficult to understand or hard to believe, all of the answers 
— clear, irrefutable, convincing, and frightening — are here in this 
salient and timely volume from the highly respected Alliance 
Defense Fund. The six-point strategy of the homosexual community 
is completely dismantled, in terms of legality, morality, politics, 
psychology, and funding. This book could be the instrument that 
will reverse the tide of influence that this devastating vice is having 
on American society today.” 

— D. James Kennedy, Senior Minister 
Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church 

“The homosexual rights movement is built on a foundation of lies, 
deception, and factual disinformation. In spite of the flood of data 
on the destructive nature of homosexual practices, homosexuality is 
being normalized and promoted in movies, television, music, and to 
children and young people in our public schools and universities. 
Contrary to the common wisdom, we do not exhibit true 
compassion when we remain silent about the true nature of 
homosexuality. Genuine compassion requires cold honesty and 
brutal frankness about the popular mythologies that surround the 
gay and lesbian lifestyle. It is this structure of lies, deception, and 
factual disinformation that Americans must understand if we are to 
save our civilization. I commend Alan Sears and Craig Osten for 
having the courage to tell the truth about this highly destructive 
movement.” 



— Marlin Maddoux, USA Radio 

“The sexual revolution of the last half-century amounts to the most 
sweeping and significant reordering of human relationships in all of 
human history. This did not come to pass by accident. Indeed, it 
was driven by social and sexual revolutionaries who intended to 



‘liberate’ humanity for the polymorphous perversity described by 
Freud and celebrated by the cultural elite. 

“The legitimation and celebration of homosexuality stands at 
the center of this sexual revolution. In The Homosexual Agenda, Alan 
Sears and Craig Osten reveal the strategy and the ambition that now 
drive the homosexual movement — a movement that will settle for 
nothing less than total victory for its cause. Sears and Osten prove 
their case and reveal the facts, and we are all in their debt. Most 
helpfully, they also prove the fact that the homosexual agenda 
cannot succeed unless religious liberty is forfeited. This may well be 
the most significant religious liberty issue of our times. Read this 
book — get angry — and get active in the cause of religious liberty.” 

— R. Albert Mohler Jr. , President 
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary 

“This ground-breaking book destroys the myth that homosexual 
activists simply want equal rights. Of the book's many strengths is 
its reliance upon homosexual activists' own stated agenda. Sears 
and Osten copiously document this agenda in what can only be 
described as a manifesto for sexual terrorism against marriage, 
family, and the church. They show how this agenda has radically 
reshaped public opinion even to threatening our religious liberties 
in their desire to codify their immoral agenda in our nation's laws. I 
commend Sears and Osten for their love of the gospel and desire to 
help those in real bondage to sin. A must-read for every pastor.” 

— Alfred Poirier, Senior Pastor 
Rocky Mountain Community Church 

“This book is courageously but compassionately written. Obviously, 
the subject engenders confusion, confrontation, and sometimes 
hostility. The facts are thoughtfully and forthrightly presented and 
are worthy of honest consideration no matter what persuasion one 
may have concerning homosexuality.” 

— Adrian Rogers, Senior Pastor, 
Bellevue Baptist Church 

“This is riveting reading. As this book shows through its review of 
the aggressive march of militant homosexuals through the courts, 
the legislatures, cultural institutions, and churches, the pretense of 
homosexuals' ‘tolerance’ of non-homosexuals is over.” 



— The Wanderer 




THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA 



Exposing the Principal Threat 
to Religious Freedom Today 



ALAN SEARS & CRAIG OSTEN 



© 2003 by Alan E. Sears and Craig J. Osten 
All rights reserved 

Printed in the United Stales of America 
ISBN: 978-0-8054-2698-4 



Published by B & H Publishing Group, Nashville, Tennessee 



Dewey Decimal Classification: 261.7 
Subject Heading: GAY LIBERATION MOVEMENT 
HOMOSEXUALITY \ FREEDOM OF RELIGION 

Unless otherwise stated all Scripture citation is from the Holy Bible, New 
International Version, © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. 



9 10 11 12 13 14 15 



11 10 09 08 07 



Contents 



Acknowledgments 
A Note from the Authors 
Introduction 
Chapters 

1: How Did We Get Here? 

2: That's Entertainment? 

3: “Stupid” Parents, “Enlightened” Kids 

4: The Lavender Tower 

5: The Family under Attack 

6: The Silence (and Silencing) of the Church 

7: The Seduction of Corporate America 

8: The End of Tolerance (for Those Who Disagree) 

9: The Full Weight of the Government 

10: Where Do We Go from Here? 

Appendix 1: Background Brief 
Appendix 2: Letter to Pastors 
Notes 



This book is dedicated 

to the founding members of the Alliance Defense Fund including: 
the late Bill Bright, the late Larry Burkett, James C. Dobson, 
D. James Kennedy, Marlin Maddoux, and the late William Pew. 



Each has taken a strong and uncompromising stand for the gospel 
and has withstood the slings and arrows of those who desire to 
silence its dissemination in America. It has been an honor for both 
of us to stand with these brave men for the sake of the gospel. 



Acknowledgments 



The authors wish to thank A1 Janssen, Jordan Lorence, Glen Lavy, 
Jeff Ventrella, Marv McCarthy, Paul Weber, Ben Bull, Rich Jefferson, 
Elizabeth Murray, and Julie Michael for their assistance on this 
project. Most of all, we express appreciation to our wives and our 
families. Their insight and help was invaluable as we tackled this 
often difficult and contentious subject. 



A Note 

from the Authors 



While this book deals with a difficult and contentious issue, we 
want to state up front that both authors and the ministry of the 
Alliance Defense Fund have nothing but respect, compassion, and 
sensitivity toward those ensnared in homosexual behavior. Both of 
us have family members, respected acquaintances, and friends who 
have been trapped in this behavior and know something of the 
incredible pain and sorrow it has brought to them and their 
families. With God's grace we carefully balance this love and 
respect for these individuals with warnings about the carrying out, 
promotion, and demand for legal approval for homosexual behavior 
that will stifle religious freedom and trap millions of more people in 
its deadly grip. 

— Alan Sears and Craig Osten 



Introduction 



Homosexuality is a condition; gay and lesbian is a decision. 

— Father Benedict Groeschel, Wtih Mind and Heart Renewed 



John had never known a loving, stable family. When he was just five, his 
biological parents divorced, beginning a revolving door of different father 
figures, none of whom lasted. What he learned from these men was that they 
were something he didn't want to be. 

By the time he was eighteen, John's mother and father were each on their 
third spouses, and he had learned that men “were unstable, they hurt you, and 
they put your mother down.” He spent his childhood as his mother's caretaker, 
and as a result, he bonded and attached himself to her. 

John grew up ashamed of himself and his male identity. As a young man, 
dressing himself up as “Candy,” he would masquerade as a female 
impersonator. This disguise was a cover-up for the inner hatred he had for 
himself and the misery he felt as a result. He was crying out for love, the love 
that only Christ could completely provide, but he had never heard. He said, 
“When I would come home from a bar with a partner I didn't know, I would 
break down in tears. ..feel like a piece of meat.. ..I was just a hollow shell.. ..I was 
twenty-four but felt like eighty. I tried to take my life.... I was tired and worn 
out.. ..I didn't want to die; I wanted to escape. ...I wanted someone to tell me 
that ‘I love you. There is something of value to you’” 

This tortured young man did not know at the time that God had a different 
plan for his life, a plan that would slowly be revealed through the quiet, 
consistent witness of a Christian couple. 

John thought the couple was “quaint” when they visited him at the print 
shop he managed. Over a period of months, the couple's Christ-like love started 
to break down the hardened exterior he had put up to suppress the pain he felt 
inside. Wherever he went, he seemed to run into this couple. He could not 
escape their kindness. 

Through the witness of this couple, John finally came face-to-face with the 
unconditional love he had missed so much as a child: the love of Jesus Christ 
and God the Father. The young man would eventually accept Christ, but as part 
of the healing process and because of his fear of the organized church, the 
couple would provide him with a personal church service, complete with music, 
sermon, and morning offering. He would read the Bible and weep as the pain of 
twenty-four years of hurt slowly melted away and he poured himself into the 
words. For the first time he knew he had a Father who loved and cared for him 
in a way he had never experienced before. 



l 



John moved to Northern California to join a church that specifically 
ministered to others trying to escape the trap of homosexual behavior. It was 
there he met his future wife, Anne, who was seeking healing from her past of 
lesbian behavior. The two fell in love and in 1992 they were married. As the 
years went by, the Lord blessed them with three sons and a relationship that 
would be a witness to the world of what the love of Jesus Christ can do to heal 
a broken heart. 

Who is this person? His name is John Paulk. We both know and love him 
and can attest that he is one of the warmest, gentlest, and most courageous 
individuals we have ever met. He has faced every sling and arrow that could be 
thrown at him, along with numerous temptations — and some human weakness 
— but has remained strong in the faith. We personally know only a few ex- 
homosexuals, but we know there are thousands of John and Anne Paulks 
throughout America who have heard and responded to the redemptive love of 
Jesus Christ. How many more are out there who need to leam of his saving 
grace? 

Unfortunately, if many homosexual activists have their way, Christ's 
message of redemptive love will be silenced and those who share it through the 
preaching of the uncensored words of Scripture will be punished. Thus, those 
who need to respond to the gospel will never have the opportunity to hear it. 
The effort of homosexual activists to convince Americans to tolerate (i.e., 
“affirm”) homosexual behavioif^ tramples religious freedom and leaves a trail of 
broken bodies in the dust. Broken bodies, broken souls who without the chance 
to hear and respond to the gospel will never know that there is a way out of a 
lifestyle, and its accompanying behaviors, that falls far short of the joy their 
Creator intended and leads to despair, disease, and early death. Yet despite 
these dangers, it is a behavior that is being promoted as nothing more than an 
alternative lifestyle, and any dissent is ridiculed, vilified, and censored. 

* Author's note: In this book, we will only use the word gay when it is part of a 
direct quote from other material. It is our belief that gay is primarily a political 
term used by radical homosexual activists to take attention away from their 
sexual behavior. In a conference in the early 1970s, a decision was made by a 
group of activists to purposefully label homosexuals and their behaviors as gay 
in order to reposition them politically. One of their goals was to get the general 
public to use the word gay instead of homosexual since they believed gay would 
take the onus off homosexual behavior. That stated, homosexuality is 
“intrinsically disordered” and contrary to Scripture and natural law. Homosexual 
persons, as are all unmarried and married persons, are called to chastity and 
sexual fidelity. We also differentiate between the word homosexuality and 
homosexual behavior, as noted hereafter. On Valentine's Day 2003, a group of 
academics gathered to discuss the proper usage of “lavender” language. Bill 
Leap, coordinator of the 10th Annual American University Conference on 
Lavender Languages and Linguistics said that homosexuals around the world 
“still struggle with the complex terminology and doublemeanings of 
homosexual language.” Leap said that TV shows such as Will & Grace are used 
by homosexuals to teach them about the basics of communication in 
“gayspeak.” Words such as “top,” “pitcher,” and “catcher” have totally different 



2 



meanings in homosexual culture. Lionel Tiger, Darwin professor of anthropology 
at Rutgers University added: “It's just a courting language. ..like any courtship 
language for a particular group of people interested in mating with each other.” 
The use of the word gay instead of homosexual is just another form of so-called 
“lavender” language. See Michael L. Betsch, “University Conference Focuses on 
‘Gay Language,’” CNSNews.com, February 6, 2003. 

t It was reported in late 2003 that syphilis rates are growing dramatically in 
America, particularly among homosexual and bisexual men, which could also 
lead to a large increase in future HIV/AIDS cases. The Centers for Disease 
Control says that 40 percent of the new cases are in homosexual/bisexual men. 
Source: Steve Mitchell, “Syphilis Increase Sparks AIDS Concerns,” United Press 
International, November 20, 2003. 

John Paulk was living such a life. But through Christ's redeeming love, 
John's life is now one of joy and fulfillment. He now knows that he is living the 
life that God intended for him. For every John and Anne Paulk we know who 
have been able to overcome homosexual behavior and come to a personal 
relationship with Jesus Christ, we know several other individuals who are still 
trapped in homosexual behavior, whether they are former classmates or family 
members. 

What we all must remember is that Christ died for all of our sins. It is not 
“hate” or “hate speech” to tell someone to turn from sin and embrace Christ's 
love. It is an act of love, for the greatest act of love the world has ever known is 
what Christ did for all of us on the cross. 

t See 1 Peter 2:24. 

We recently received another reminder of how the love and power of the 
gospel can bring healing to a broken life. 

Melissa Fryrear is a former lesbian who, in Jesus Christ, found the love that 
she had been searching for all her life. Her testimony is touching and a reminder 
to all of us of God's amazing and transforming grace. Melissa has graciously 
agreed to allow us to share it. 

I am the second and last child my parents adopted in the ‘60s. I grew 
up in a nice upper-middle class neighborhood in the east end of Louisville. 
Thirty-six years later, my parents continue to live in the same home. 

I grew up attending church.... At Trinity, I was dedicated as a baby; I 
went to Vacation Bible School in the summer; and I played in the children's 
handbell choir. Although I had grown up attending church, I had not yet 
made a personal decision for Jesus Christ. Attending church seemed like 
something we did because it was the “right thing to do.” In retrospect, I 
remember hearing stories about Jesus and about people in the Bible, but I 
never recall hearing a story about salvation. I did not yet know I was a 
sinner in need of a Savior. 

I remember one Sunday morning when I was thirteen. I was sitting in 
the sanctuary with my parents waiting for the 11:00 a.m. service to begin. I 
picked up a Bible that was resting on the back of the pew in front of me 



3 



and I began to flip through the pages at random. As I was flipping through 
the pages, the Bible fell open to the book of Leviticus, the eighteenth 
chapter. My eyes fell upon the 22nd verse: “A man should not lie with 
another man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” My eyes hung 
on that semicolon and then swung to the words that followed: 
“that.. .is. ..detestable.” Without looking around and without saying a word 
to anyone, I closed that Bible, placed it back on the pew in front of me, 
and in my heart I said “No” to God. When I read that verse, the words that 
I read after the semicolon were, “Melissa is detestable.” 

Even at thirteen, I had already known for a couple of years that 
something seemed different about me. Many gays and lesbians believe they 
are bom homosexual. This is what I believed. I had made that decision 
because as early as the age of seven, I could remember being drawn to 
girls. My assumption was, “Well, if I have always felt this way, then I must 
have been bom this way.” That was a beginning seed, I believe, that began 
to take root in the soul of my heart. 

As my adolescent years continued to unfold, my mind was filled with a 
barrage of screaming questions: ‘What is wrong with me?!” “Why don't I 
seem to be attracted to the boys like the other girls?!” “Why do I seem 
attracted to the girls?!” “Why do I hate being a girl?!” “What is wrong with 
me?!” In an attempt to answer those screaming questions, I opened up a 
dictionary one day and read the definitions to words like homosexual and 
lesbian and gay. That seed sprouted. 

I was sixteen when I became involved in my first lesbian 
relationship.... Unaware, unable, and unwilling to resist the temptation and 
draw any longer, I embraced with outstretched and welcoming arms my 
lesbian identity. When I left home at eighteen to attend the University of 
Kentucky, I immersed myself in the gay community. Everything in my 
world revolved around being gay. I had three goals in life: have a good 
time, make a lot of money, and without overusing the cliche, find the 
woman of my dreams. ..and the seed flourished. 

In the late '80s, I began working for an advertising agency in 
Lexington. The agency was owned by three men, one who was a Christian. 
Bill was the Christian. He was always kind, considerate, and respectful 
toward me. He was unlike the other two men.... 

These years of my life continued to unfold and from my perspective, I 
was well on my way to achieving my three goals in life. I was having some 
really good times; I was making a lot of money; and yet again, I was in a 
relationship with a woman. Yet something was stirring within me. 

One Saturday night unexpectedly, I asked my partner at the time if she 
wanted to go to church the next morning. Because we were so emotionally 
enmeshed, she agreed to almost anything I ever suggested. This time was 
no exception. Because I had grown up in the Presbyterian church, that 
seemed the most familiar place to start and so we looked in the phone 
book. In the small community of Versailles, there was only one 
Presbyterian church, appropriately named Versailles Presbyterian, and as 



4 



one might expect, it was located on Main Street. It was a small 
congregation of predominantly older couples. Needless to say, when my 
partner and I walked in, it was obvious. The members of that church, 
though, received us with warmth and without condemnation. I 
immediately became involved in all the activities they offered: the 
Wednesday night potlucks, Sunday morning Bible studies, and I even joined 
the adult handbell choir. 

There was a couple in their seventies, L. J. and Doris Crain, who took 
me under their wings and into their hearts. L. J. was an intelligent and kind 
man. He was the clerk of session and led our adult Sunday morning Bible 
study.. ..Bill from my workplace, and L. J. and Doris from my church, knew 
the life I was living. They were discerning people and at that time I looked 
like a lesbian woman... sporting a short, cropped hairstyle, very little 
makeup, and masculine attire. And although they knew about me and the 
life I was living, they never said a word about my homosexual lifestyle. 
Instead, they met me where I was, accepted me with grace, loved me 
unconditionally, and prayed for me fervently. It was through relationship 
with them that I was led to make the most important decision of my life. 
One afternoon, sitting alone on the edge of my bed in the stillness of my 
bedroom, I said quietly in my heart, “Jesus, Jesus please, please come and 
be the Savior of my life and the Lord of my life.” He did; and a new seed 
was planted. 

My partner at the time actually gave me my first Bible... It was the New 
International Version Study Bible in blue leather with silver edged pages 
and the words of Jesus in red. I began to read that Bible, and it was not 
long before I discovered what a concordance is. Just in case you were 
wondering, “homosexuality” in the NIV concordance is listed alphabetically 
between “hometown” and “honesty.” I soon learned there were a number 
of Scriptures that address the issue of homosexuality. I read again the 
Scripture in Leviticus that I had read so many years before. I also found 
verses in Deuteronomy, Romans, and 1 Corinthians. And this is when the 
wrestling ensued. 

For months I went around and around with the Lord. I did not yet 
understand; my faith was so new. I argued with Him; I pleaded with Him; I 
fled from Him; I yelled at Him; and I opposed Him. “God,” I said, “I know 
Your Word says that it's wrong, that it's a sin, but to me it feels like I've 
been bom this way. It's all I've ever known. To me it feels normal, but You 
say it's an abomination. God help me!” 

The Bible says the Word of God is living and active, sharper than a 
double-edged sword; it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints 
and marrow. It judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Isaiah 55:11 
says that God's Word will not return empty, but it will accomplish what 
God desires and achieve the purposes for which He sends it. For the next 
four, eight, and twelve months the Holy Spirit of God continued to work 
those tmths into my heart until I came to the point of convicting revelation 
where I knew what I was doing was sin. But God demonstrated in His own 
love for me in this, that while I was still a sinner, Christ died for me. The 



5 



Bible says that repentance is a gift and that it's God's kindness that leads us 
to repentance. During those months, even in my confusion, even in my 
anger, even in my rebellion, God showered me with His love. In 1992, by 
His grace, I repented of my years of sexual sin and the new seed sprouted. 

The separation, though, from my partner at the time was not 
immediate. Although at the time of repentance all sexual immorality 
stopped, we still shared a bed together, a home together, and a life 
together. That was one of the first tangible experiences I had of God's 
patient and tender mercy. He knew how incredibly enmeshed we were. It 
was as if we were two infected wounds that had been crudely bandaged 
together with dirty and soiled gauze. But like a sensitive and compassionate 
doctor, the Lord began to slowly and gently unwrap that dressing. Over the 
next months. He continued to move in our lives and we eventually 
separated completely. 



Can you imagine if Melissa had never had the chance to hear and respond 
to the gospel? If the law had forbidden it? If it were considered hate speech to 
tell her? She would still be trapped in a behavior that brought her so much 
shame. She would have no idea that Christ loves her and can forgive her for her 
past. It would be an incredible tragedy but one that can and will happen if we 
remain silent to the threat that the homosexual agenda represents to religious 
freedom in America. 

Melissa's story is also a reminder that Jesus himself is why we must treat 
individuals who practice homosexual behavior with respect, compassion, and 
sensitivity. To do otherwise would mean a disservice to the gospel and Christ's 
sacrifice. 

Another example of a hurting individual who came to know the healing 
grace of Jesus Christ is Teresa Britton. Teresa was raised Baptist, but by her 
senior year, she was going to “gay” bars in search of love. She never found it, 
regardless of how many lesbian relationships she was involved in. One night, 
crying in bed, she said that she felt God touch her: “The next thing I knew I was 
on the floor in a fetal position. Within that instant, all the lies I believed and all 
the gray areas of my life became black and white. The truth had been revealed 
to me, and I knew the way I was living was wrong.” 

The lie was that she was bom homosexual and couldn't change. Teresa 
traced her entrapment in lesbianism to her father's alcoholism and physical 
abuse. “I will never, ever let a man treat me like that,” she would say to herself. 
“If that's what a man is all about, why would I want to be with one?” In 
September 2000, she accepted Jesus Christ as her Lord and Savior. One of the 
reasons? The love of Christ shown through church members. Without her 
church, she said, “I would probably still be bouncing from one relationship to 
another. I would be on the road to destmction instead of the road to life.” This 
is the love that God calls us to, and this is the love that we must defend against 
those who seek to silence it. 

Craig is also a good friend with another woman who had escaped from 



6 



lesbian behavior. His friend had served as the press secretary to Patricia Ireland, 
the former president of the National Organization for Women. She knew deep 
down about the sinfulness of her lesbian behavior and wanted to escape, but she 
felt nothing but anger and condemnation from individuals who called 
themselves Christians. The anger she felt repelled her from Christianity for many 
years. Despite this, God continued to work on her heart and eventually brought 
her to him. She still struggles with the anger she experienced from Christians 
when she was a lesbian but has remained strong in the faith. 

The experiences of Craig's friend remind us that, as with all sin by persons 
of whatever orientation, we must differentiate between condemning the sin of 
homosexual behavior and condemning the individual. Ultimately only God 
judges the heart. We vehemently disagree and disassociate ourselves with the 
actions of individuals, such as Fred Phelps of Topeka, Kansas, who would picket 
the funerals of AIDS victims, post messages that “God Hates Fags” on the World 
Wide Web, condemn those who have compassion for those trapped in 
homosexual behavior, and state that there is no redemption for the 
homosexual. 

* Fred Phelps and his followers have picketed Focus on the Family because the 
ministry employs three former homosexuals on its staff: John Paulk, Amy Tracy 
and Mike Haley 

However, on the other hand, we cannot stand idly by while many well- 
meaning individuals provide spiritual cover for and enable those who are caught 
in and/or promote this destructive behavior. We are called by a living God to 
serve him, and there are crystal-clear, non-debatable issues that cannot be 
dismissed if we are to live in obedience to him. One of those issues is 
homosexual behavior. God the Creator has written the rule book (the Bible) for 
his creation, and despite reinterpretations and explanations by activists and 
some members of the clergy, his Word undeniably condemns homosexual 
behavior. 

* 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit 
the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor 
idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor 
thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit 
the kingdom of God” (emphasis added). Romans 1:24-28 states: “Therefore God 
gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the 
degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for 
a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator — who is 
forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. 
Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same 
way, the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed 
with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and 
received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” Leviticus 18:22 
reads: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” 

Christ's healing power has never been more powerful than today, as proven 
in the cases of these former homosexuals. The hurt and shame that homosexual 
behavior can bring to an individual is devastating. In a USA Today article. 



7 



Sharon Sherrard, a San Rafael, California, accountant, said that she found solace 
with regard to her lesbian behavior by drinking alcohol to excess. “‘No matter 
what I did,’” she said, “‘I knew in my mind that I could never, quote, get to 
heaven as long as I was an active lesbian. Ms. Sherrard desperately needs to 
know Christ's love for her and that only he can heal the wounds in her heart 
that have caused her to fall into lesbian behavior. However, if the gospel is 
silenced, she will be forced to continue to find her solace elsewhere, such as in 
a liquor bottle, rather than having it quenched by the living water that is Jesus 
Christ. 

Alan has witnessed the pain of those who are trapped in homosexual 
behavior firsthand from the time he spent as a full-time and special prosecutor 
— both on the local and federal levels — and as the head of several criminal 
investigative task forces. In addition, he served as the executive director of the 
Attorney General's Commission on Pornography in 1985-86. In the various roles 
he served across the United States, he had in-depth and personal exposure to 
not only the criminal enterprise surrounding hard-core pornography's 
production and distribution, but to much of the related sex trade, especially to 
those who practiced homosexual behavior. In multiple prosecutions of people 
involved in every level of the pornography trafficking industry, Alan learned 
firsthand, many times from hours of conversations with defendants and their 
counsel, of these individuals' real view of the First Amendment (it was a joke 
and a smoke screen). He also learned what the profiteering pomographers 
thought of the homosexual persons who were plied with every manner of video, 
magazine, and appliance. To be blunt, the pomographers had nothing but 
disgust and ridicule for those who paid them hard cash. 

In years of public speaking during and after this period of his life, Alan 
called pornography the “true hate literature” of our age, because of its hatred 
and exploitation of the human person, regardless of size, shape, color, and 
gender. It reduced human beings to valueless commodities to be ogled at and 
disposed of like used tissue. And sad to say, many of these individuals who 
were disposed of by the pomographers were practicing homosexuals. 

One of the unique experiences Alan had was to meet many young 
homosexual men and women who were stmggling with the issue of 
pornography and the various forms of sex trade outlets. These included the so- 
called gay bars, many of which he, and his other commission members, 
discovered to be often owned or controlled not by homosexuals, but by 
exploitive heterosexuals and criminal enterprises. These individuals and 
organizations just wanted to make a buck off the weakness of others. Alan 
talked with these men and women in depth about their pain, their heart needs, 
and the role that this material played in their formation and their sexual 
behavior. Alan has maintained some of these relationships for more than 
seventeen years by occasional correspondence, and some of the individuals he 
knew have since died of sexually transmitted diseases. 

Based on these years and experiences with those trapped in homosexual 
behavior, we must express real outrage at the merciless exploitation of those 
with homosexual urges and temptations. Overt efforts are made by many to lead 
young men and women into homosexual behavior, many for simple, base 



8 



reasons that have nothing to do with political agendas — instead, the new 
recruits are “fresh meat” and sources of new cash, new sex partners, and new 
profit. 

It is for these tragically exploited people that Christ died. Those who are 
trapped in homosexual behavior have been deceived, just like anyone else who 
does not know the fullness of Christ. They are often told that their greatest 
enemies are the church (and in the case of Craig's friend many have sadly given 
credence to that thought) and the traditional family, the two entities that could 
bring the healing they so desperately need. The result is that the immense inner 
pain of many has been channeled into an incessant drive to silence, punish, 
and, ultimately, eliminate these two institutions. It is the church (a church that 
proclaims the gospel) that can guide them to the healing of their pain through 
faith in Jesus Christ, and it is the traditional family that can keep future 
generations of children from falling into homosexual behavior. 

John Paulk's story is an example of what can happen when the traditional 
family breaks down and children are left hurt and confused. With only one 
parent — in most cases, the mother — to bond with and attach to, boys in 
particular are vulnerable to falling into homosexual behavior. John's 
experiences remind us that we must support and defend the traditional family, 
in order to prevent such pain from being spread to an entire generation of 
children. 

* We have both, one through personal experience, and the other through an 
immediate family member's experience, known the pain, the shame, and the 
sorrow when God's plan for the traditional family has been broken by divorce. 
Only by God's grace, his forgiveness, restoration, and healing in our lives do our 
own families today experience the richness of living his model lifestyle. 

The Alliance Defense Fund® was founded to defend the right to hear and 
speak the Truth — that truth is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Alli ance Defense 
Fund has been involved in countless cases involving the rights of people to live 
and express their faith, to share Christ's love with a hurting world, to protect 
the sanctity of human life, and to defend marriage and the family from those 
who seek to redefine these terms into meaninglessness. We will discuss some of 
the legal cases that the Alliance Defense Fund has been part of and how what 
we have experienced has alarmed both of us with regard to how the 
homosexual agenda threatens religious freedom, and in particular, evangelism. 

t The Alliance Defense Fund is a one-of-a-kind legal service organization 
founded in 1994 by the late Dr. Bill Bright, Dr. James Dobson, Dr. D. James 
Kennedy, the late Larry Burkett, Marlin Maddoux, the late William Pew, and 
more than thirty other national ministry leaders to provide strategy and 
coordination, training, and funding in the legal battle for religious freedom, 
sanctity of human life, and the traditional family and its values. ADF has 
provided funding and assistance in hundreds of legal matters, including twenty- 
nine cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, has trained more than 715 volunteer 
attorneys to serve the Body of Christ across America, and partnered with more 
than one hundred ministries and organizations. Since its formation, ADF has 
been involved in nearly every legal case of national scope concerning the 



9 



definition of marriage and attempts to redefine the family. 

Almost daily, we hear from another parent whose children have been 
exposed to homosexual activism in the classroom, or from an employee forced 
to undergo so-called diversity training at work (training that ridicules the 
Christian position on homosexual behavior), or from a business person forced 
to violate his or her sincerely held religious beliefs about homosexual behavior. 
These cases are not going away. We are seeing them happen with increasing 
frequency as the homosexual activist movement strives to censor or marginalize 
all speech that is in accord with biblical teaching on homosexual behavior, and 
with it, the gospel of Jesus Christ. 

In the pages following, we will outline how these attacks on religious 
freedom are being played out in all aspects of our culture. We know from 
personal experience that many Christians we come in contact with are 
uncomfortable with this whole issue of homosexuality. They hear such words as 
“intolerance,” and they want to be considered tolerant. They hear the term 
“hateful,” and they want to appear loving. They say, “All we need to do is share 
the gospel,” yet are unaware that their ability to do even that is quickly eroding 
away. Many choose to avoid the subject totally, rather than set themselves up 
for ridicule and vilification. 

So why are we insisting that we examine this issue? Because, whether you 
realize it or not, this issue affects your marriage, it threatens your children, and 
if we don't do something soon, it will drastically limit your religious liberty. 

For the sake of evangelism, for the sake of freedom and human rights, and 
for the sake of the very souls of those who desperately need to hear about the 
love of Jesus Christ, like John Paulk and the others we have mentioned who 
have responded to the gospel, we cannot allow this to happen. 

And the church is confused on the issue. This is why we believe, with the 
strongest sense of urgency, that the faith community must be fully educated on 
the threat that is coming to the front door of their places of worship and their 
homes. We need to do this not only for those trapped in homosexual behavior, 
but also for the future of our children, our country, and the church. 

Consider the following illustration. You are on vacation, visiting the Grand 
Canyon. As you are standing on an observation platform, you witness the 
typical scene of a person below the platform with his back to the edge of the 
canyon posing for a picture. Then something unusual and disturbing happens. 
The person keeps backing closer and closer to the edge. From your vantage 
point you can see that if the person backs up any farther, he is going to plunge 
thousands of feet to his death. From his vantage point, he cannot see what is 
about to happen. 

You run toward him and shout a warning. Then something even more 
unusual happens. The people standing below the platform, taking the picture, 
yell back at you and tell you to stop your hate speech. They tell you that you 
need to respect diversity and the decision to stand as close to the ledge as they 
want. Before their last words are finished, the person near the edge continues 
backing up, loses his footing, and falls to a horrible death. 



to 



To your astonishment, the photographer runs over to you, shakes his fist in 
your face, and says that your bigotry caused the person's death. 

Sound preposterous? Yes, it does. 

But due to the incredible, amazing grace of God, believers have been 
granted the vantage point to see and warn the individuals of the dangers ahead 
if they continue to engage in sinful behavior. He has given us the ability to see 
from the observation tower the big picture that others cannot see. 

Few, if any, would condemn people standing dangerously close to the 
edge. However, we would warn them and others of the physical dangers ahead 
if they keep moving in the direction they are going. Compassion does not mean 
that you provide the person with a pat on the back as he heads over the cliff. It 
means loving our neighbors as ourselves and warning them of the dangers ahead 
if they continue down the same path. As Christians, we cannot sit idly by as 
individuals engage in behavior that will result in their eternal demise. Yet, the 
concern we have for our brothers and sisters — for their physical, psychological, 
and eternal welfare — has now often been classified as hate speech, and in the 
near future we face the real likelihood of punishment if we issue even the 
slightest of warnings about what may await them. As Christians, we cannot 
remain silent, nor can we allow others to silence us when it comes to the 
eternal soul of an individual. However, if the homosexual agenda continues to 
go unchecked that is exactly what is going to happen. 

The other question we have to ask ourselves is this: are we willing to take a 
stand for our children and our grandchildren? What type of world will they 
inherit if we do not take a stand? Will they inherit a world of broken families 
and broken lives, a world in which any mention of the sinfulness of homosexual 
behavior and the need for the redemptive love of the gospel is a criminal 
offense? Or will they inherit a world in which the gospel can be freely lived out 
and proclaimed, in which traditional families are encouraged by society, and in 
which the religious beliefs of parents are supported, and not undermined, by 
the state? 

In the pages to follow, we will strive to make the point that the future of 
our children and grandchildren is in our hands. We will outline how the 
homosexual agenda touches every area of our lives, from the media to 
education to families to corporate America and to government. We will 
document how the religious freedoms of all Americans are under attack from 
radical homosexual activists. 

Will we avert our glance while Rome bums and our children are lost 
because we were afraid... afraid to offend, afraid to be labeled intolerant, afraid 
to take action in fear of repercussions? Or will we take a stand for Christ and for 
our children and grandchildren? 

How far down the road have homosexual activists taken us toward their 
goal of unbridled sexual behavior and silencing of the church? Let us look at 
four stages that lead to the moral demise of a culture. Prepare yourselves to be 
alarmed. 



n 



1. The Community Establishment Stage. In this stage, a group of like-minded 
individuals (homosexual activists) who practice a lifestyle or sinful behavior 
discover each other and start to play a larger role in society. They start to 
feel empowered. 

2. The Organization Stage. In this stage, the group now feels empowered and 
starts to get organized and develop a game plan for legitimizing their 
behavior in society. 

3. The Mobilization Stage. The group starts to pool together all of its resources. 
They develop a common language and strategy for presenting their case to 
the public. They reframe the issue, taking it out of the moral realm, and 
present it as a “human rights” issue. Those who oppose their argument are 
deemed “hateful” or “intolerant” toward those that are “different” even 
though the group's only identification is that of a chosen sexual behavior. 

4. The Legitimization Stage. Once an issue has been redefined from a moral 
absolute to an individual choice, society starts to be reprogrammed that the 
arguments of the group are valid and therefore special privileges for 
previous “injustices” and for the affirmation of the behavior occur. 

* These stages were developed by S. Michael Craven. 

We are at stage 4 and are at the eleventh hour with regard to homosexual 
activism and religious freedom. The homosexual activists have the ball on our 
ten-yard line, and it is first and goal. We can either put up a brave defensive 
stand, or we can let them cross the goal line unhindered. If believers choose to 
do nothing, there may be a day that people of faith will have to tell their 
children and grandchildren, “I'm sorry. I did nothing to protect your religious 
freedom and now it's gone.” They will have to say to those caught in 
homosexual behavior and wish to escape, like John Paulk, “I'm sorry, I cannot 
help you.” Let us pray that we never have to face that scenario and that God's 
eternal truth, as expressed through the death and resurrection of his Son, Jesus 
Christ, will continue to be proclaimed boldly and without apology in our 
land... that together on our knees the door will remain open for the gospel. 



12 



CHAPTER ONE 



How Did We Get Here? 



If we reflect on the dreadful consequences of sodomy to a state, 
and on the extent to which this abominable vice may be secretly carried 
on and spread '; we cannot, on the principles of sound policy, consider 
the punishment as too severe. For if it once begins to prevail, not only 
will boys be easily corrupted by adults, but also by other boys; nor will 
it ever cease; more especially as it must thus soon lose all its 
shamefulness and infamy and become fashionable and the national 
taste; and then... national weakness, for which all remedies 
are ineffectual, most inevitably follow; not perhaps in the first 
generation, but certainly in the course of the third or fourth.... To 
these evils may be added yet another, viz. that the constitutions 
of those men who submit to this degradation are, if not always, 
yet very often, totally destroyed, though in a different way 
from what is the result of the whoredom. 

Whoever, therefore, wishes to ruin a nation, has only to get this 
vice introduced; for it is extremely difficult to extirpate it where 
it has once taken root because it can be propagated with much 
secrecy.. .and when we perceive that it has once got a footing 
in any country, however, powerful and flourishing, we may venture 
as politicians to predict that die foundation of its future decline 
is laid and that after some hundred years it will no longer 
be the same... powerful country it is at the present 

— Sir John David Michaelis, Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, 1814 



In the June 2004 issue of the homosexual magazine The Advocate, the editors 
took a wishful look at their vision for America in the year 2054: 

Evan Wolfson, director of Freedom to Marry, a national group that 
advocates for marriage rights for same-sex couples, predicts a scenario in 
which a student in a rural classroom announces during recess that he's 
going to marry the boy who sits next to him. There will be no punishment 
from the teacher or taunts from classmates. After all, the boy might have 
two moms who are frequently seen at parent-teacher conferences.. ..After 
winning the Super Bowl, a gay quarterback could scream at TV crews, “I'm 
going to Disney World with my boyfriend!” The first lady could be the “first 
womyn.”... Gay-themed TV shows, movies, and music now reserved for 
cable and other specialized outlets will likely be a staple of broadcast 
networks, multiplexes, and major labels, and no one will bat an eye at 
fictional portrayals of same-sex relationships. 



13 



The article quotes University of Southern California Anthropology and 
Gender Studies Professor Walter L. Williams: “I think we'll see more progress in 
the gay movement in the next 10 years than we saw in the past 50.” 

That is an alarming thought considering what has happened over the past 
twenty years. In 1983, 30 percent of Americans said that they knew someone 
who was homosexual. By 2000, that figure had skyrocketed to 73 percent. In 
1985, only 40 percent of those polled said they were comfortable around 
individuals who practice homosexual behavior. By 2000, that number had risen 
to 60 percent. Also in 1985, 90 percent of Americans said they would be upset 
if their son or daughter announced they were homosexual. By 2000, that figure 
stood at just 37 percent. 

Those of us who have dealt with the issue of the homosexual agenda issue 
over the years often stop and ask ourselves in disbelief: How has 1 to 2 percent 
of the population^ achieved so much success in transforming American culture 
and restricting religious freedom? 

* Homosexual activists often proclaim that 10 percent of the population is 
homosexual. The 10 percent figure is based on studies and publications by Dr. 
Alfred C. Kinsey. However, Dr. Kinsey's methodology was defective. He used 
data gathered from interviews with felons, including sex offenders; volunteers 
who were coached to give answers that skewed the results; and the sexual 
stimulation of boys ages two months to fifteen years old. (See Judith Reisman, 
Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences [Arlington, Va.: The Institute for Media 
Education, 1998]; Wardell Pomeroy, Dr. Kinsey and the Instimte for Sex Research 
[New York: Harper & Row, 1972], 97-137.) In contrast, a 1993 report from the 
Alan Guttmacher Institute (part of Planned Parenthood and thus not a 
conservative organization) found that only 1.1 percent of 3,321 men surveyed 
considered themselves to be exclusively homosexual, and only 2.3 percent had 
engaged in sex with another man in the prior ten years (John O. G. Billy, et al. 
Family Planning Perspectives [Alan Guttmacher Institute, March/ April 1993]). Sex 
in America: A Definitive Survey reported that of 3,432 respondents, “about 1.4 
percent of women said they thought themselves as homosexual or bisexual and 
about 2.8 percent of men identified themselves in this way” (Robert T. Michael, 
et al. [ New York: Warner Books, 1995], 176). An article published in Pediatrics 
likewise reported that of 34,706 adolescents surveyed (grades 7-12), 1.1 percent 
said they were bisexual or predominantly homosexual (Gary Remafedi, et. al., 
abstract, “Demography of Sexual Orientation in Adolescents,” Pediatrics, Vol. 89, 
1992, pp. 714-21). No survey using random sampling techniques has duplicated 
Kinsey's results. 

The road leading to the grave threat that the homosexual agenda poses to 
evangelism, faith, and religious freedom did not happen overnight. It has been 
part of a long-term strategy implemented by radical homosexual activists to 
dramatically transform America's perception of homosexuality and of those who 
oppose homosexual behavior. 

As Gene Edward Veith wrote about the tremendous gains made by the 
homosexual activist movement: “Homo-sexuality used to be considered a vice; 



14 



now even those it makes uncomfortable now must avow — as in a Seinfeld 
episode — ‘not that there's anything wrong with it,’ while those who think there 
is something wrong with it are considered to have the vice of intolerance.” 

What has caused such a radical shift in public attitudes toward homosexual 
behavior? And how did this shift happen in less than a generation? 



That's how lasting social change happens — the barriers suddenly come down when nobody's 

looking. 

—Walter Shapiro, USA Today columnist, on the success of the homosexual rights 

movement 



The reason is a well-thought-out strategy that was devised in part by 
homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen and publicized in two 
publications: a 1987 article titled “The Overhauling of Straight America” and a 
1989 book titled After the Ball. When one reads both of these works, one sees 
how radical homosexual activists have implemented the strategy laid out in 
these publications almost to the letter. 

t The following information is included in both places. The article “The 
Overhauling of Straight America” is found in chapter 3, “Strategy: Persuasion, 
Not Invasion.” In addition, Madsen used the pseudonym Erastes Pill in the 
article but used his real name in the book. 

The homosexual activists laid out a six-point strategy to radically change 
America's perception of homosexual behavior. Their six points were: 

1. Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible. 

2. Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers. 

3. Give homosexual protectors a “just” cause. 

4. Make gays look good. 

5. Make the victimizers look bad. 

6. Solicit funds: the buck stops here (i.e., get corporate America and major 

foundations to financially support the homosexual cause). 

We are going to examine all six of these points and show how each is being 
played out in present-day American culture. 

“Talk about Gays and Gayness 
as Loudly and Often as Possible” 

In “The Overhauling of Straight America,” Kirk and Madsen write, “The 
principle behind this advice is simple: almost all behavior begins to look normal 
if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your 
acquaintances.” 

This principle has proven itself time and time again throughout history as 
inhumane and outrageous behavior have become commonplace and ordinary. 



15 



Every modem dictator has understood this principle as well. 

In the past decade it has often seemed that every time you blink there is 
another newspaper article and another television show talking about otherwise 
“ordinary” individuals who practice homosexual behavior. The onslaught is 
relentless. This continual promotion of homosexual behavior eventually has one 
of two effects: (1) it convinces people that homosexual behavior is just another 
lifestyle, or (2) causes them to get so sick of the issue that they throw their 
hands up in disgust or become exhausted and then withdraw. Either way, the 
radical homosexual activists win, as they have either convinced people that they 
are “just like my fishing buddy” or make them so fed up with the issue that they 
can no longer stand it and just say to themselves, “I'm tired. I give up. Give 
them what they want so they will be quiet.” 

Kirk and Madsen wrote, “The main thing is talk about gayness until the 
issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.” This ties into the concept of perseverance, 
the gradual wearing-down of people until they get to the point of total fatigue 
and give in on an issue. As we will see throughout this book, homosexual 
activists continue to hammer away time and time again until people just say, 
“Forget it” and then homosexuals get their way. 

The activists were also very much aware that the unseemly sides of 
homosexual behavior — the types of sexual activity and its consequences — 
would have to be suppressed in order to gain acceptance. They wrote: “In the 
early stages of the campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not 
be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. 
Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be 
reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible^ Therefore, the link 
between the practices of homosexual behavior and pedophilia, as well as the 
other dark sides of homosexual behavior, are intentionally suppressed or 
denied. Kirk and Madsen added: “First let the camel get his nose inside the tent 
— and only later his unsightly derriere!” 

An example of this was found in article that appeared in the February 8, 
2004, San Francisco Chronicle. Reporting on the growing acceptance of 
homosexual behavior, Rona Marech wrote. 

First, there was the term “homosexual,” then “gay” and “lesbian,” then 
the once-taboo “dyke” and “queer.” Now all bets are off. With the universe 
of gender and sexual identities expanding, a gay youth culture is emerging, 
acceptance of gays rising and label loyalty falling, the gay lexicon has 
exploded with scores of new words and blended phrases that delineate 
every conceivable stop on the identity spectrum — at least for this 
week.... Someone who is “genderqueer,” for example, views the gender 
options as more than just male and female or doesn't fit into the binary 
male-female system. A “trannydyke” is a transgender person attracted to 
people with a more feminine gender, while a “pansexual” is attracted to 
people of multiple genders. A “boi” describes a boyish gay guy or a 
biological female with a male presentation; and “heteroflexible” refers to a 
straight person with a queer mindset.. ..The list of terms — which have hotly 
contested definitions — goes on: “FTM” for female to make, “MTF” for male 



16 



to female, “boy dyke,” “trannyboy” “trannyfag,” “multigendered,” 
“polygendered,” “queerboi,” “transboi,” “transguy,” “transman,” “half- 
dyke,” “bi-dyke,” “stud,” “stem,” “trisexual,” “omnisexual,” and 
“multisexual.” 

Carolyn Laub, of the Gay-Straight Alliance Network, added, “We in society 
and our generation are developing new understandings of sexual orientation and 
gender identities and what that means to us. We don't really have enough 
language to describe that; therefore, we have to create new words.” 

Sam Davis, founder of a group called “United Genders of the Universe,” 
continued: “If you're not a man or a woman, words like ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ don't fit 
you anymore. The words from just a few years ago aren't adequate to talk about 
who we are, where we're coming from and who we like.” 

Kirk and Madsen also knew full well that the media would play an 
important role in their crusade. They stated, “The average American watches 
over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private 
world of straights, through which a Trojan Horse might be passed.” 
Homosexual behavior has not only become commonplace on network television 
and in movies, but homosexual characters are often portrayed as the most 
compassionate, funny, “normal,” and “human” individuals in the show. Shows 
such as Queer Eye for the Straight Guy on the Bravo network now portray 
homosexual behavior as superior to heterosexual behavior. 

The next target for Kirk and Madsen was organized religion. They wrote, 
“While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious 
authority is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are 
only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of the true believers. 
First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing 
support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of 
our own about conservative interpretations of Biblical teachings, and exposing 
hatred and inconsistency.” The homosexual activists have found a more than 
willing ally in liberal churches, many which threw out the gospel years ago 
anyway. Many of these churches now seemingly exist for few purposes besides 
the promotion of homosexual behavior. 

With regard to churches that hold fast to the biblical teaching on 
homosexual behavior, Kirk and Madsen said, “We can undermine the moral 
authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated 
backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of 
psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional religion, one must set the 
mightier draw of science and public opinion.. ..Such an unholy alliance has 
worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion.” 
Therefore, conservative Christians have been referred to in the media as “largely 
poor, uneducated, and easy to command.” 

In addition, even in traditional churches, dissenting advocates of 
homosexual politics are portrayed as enlightened, cutting-edge thinkers. 

“Portray Gays as Victims, Not Aggressive Challengers” 



17 



Kirk and Madsen's next point, “Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive 
challengers,” is a direct play to most Americans' basic sense of fairness and 
liberal guilt about anyone who claims to have been oppressed. Therefore, 
despite demographic statistics to the contrary, homosexual activists have 
skillfully played the media like a drum to portray themselves as a victimized 
class in need of special protections. 

* Later in the book we will present statistics to demonstrate that many 
individuals who practice homosexual behavior have higher incomes, more 
disposable income, and are more likely to travel overseas, among other things. 

In addition, they have been extremely skillful at turning tragedies into 
opportunities to move the homosexual agenda forward and portray anyone who 
opposes them as “murderers” or at least sympathetic to murder. This was 
evident in the assassination of Harvey Milk (the first open homosexual on the 
San Francisco Board of Supervisors); the AIDS epidemic of the early 1980s, 
when homosexual activists turned a deadly disease spread primarily by 
homosexual behavior into a civil rights issue; and the Matthew Shepard murder, 
when two non-religious thugs shamefully and brutally killed a young 
homosexual man by hanging him on a fence to die. In this last instance, 
homosexual activists went on the Today show and immediately blamed the 
murder on conservative Christian organizations such as Focus on the Family. 
Dr. Dobson, the president of Focus on the Family, holds sincere religious 
objections to homosexual behavior but denounces violence of any kind. 
Instead, it was two thugs with no consciences at all who murdered Shepard. It 
is likely that if these two individuals had a strong relationship with Jesus Christ, 
Shepard would still be alive today. 

Perhaps the most vicious diatribe came from Deborah Mathis who wrote in 
the Orlando Sentinel: 

The opponents [of homosexual behavior] prefer not to acknowledge 
their own bigotry. Hence, the disguise — or self-delusion — of noble purpose. 
They insist that they mean no harm. ‘Hate the sin, love the sinner’ is their 
mantra. How tiresome. How empty. But a handy little motto it is, for sure. 
Thanks to it, homophobes the world over don't have to reconcile their hate 
that writhes in their hearts with the Christianity that rests on their sleeves. 
Chant it enough times, and you can feel almost sanctified. ...Did the 
antihomosexual crowd help kill Matthew Shepherd? Nor per se. But it 
poisoned the air, which poisoned the minds which connived to attract, 
deceive, and destroy a young man who deserved, in the least, to be left 
alone. They share in the complicity. 

* In Chicago, a homosexual teenager killed a Catholic woman who was trying to 
persuade him to change his sexual orientation. The woman, Mary Stachowicz, 
was found strangled and then was placed in a crawl space under the floor. Yet 
there was no “hue and cry” over this “hate crime” and it was barely reported in 
the national press. Peter LaBarbera said: “If a gay man had been murdered for 
trying to convince someone to be gay, it would be a national news story and be 
deemed a hate crime. But when a gay man murders a woman who tried to 



18 



convince him to change, the media spike the story.” See Ellen Sorokin, “Some 
Say Gay Teen Should Face Hate Crime in Slaying,” Washington Times, November 
26, 2002. 

Mathis also adds that conservative Christians are like Adolf Hitler, who 
exterminated 6 million Jews. Perhaps she has forgotten the brave actions of 
Christians such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Titus Brandsma, and Corrie ten Boom, 
who stood up to Hitler and his tragic slaughter of millions. However, her 
column is a vivid example of how far the homosexual activists and their allies 
are willing to go to demonize people of faith. 

Randy Thomas, a former homosexual, succinctly summed up what has 
happened: “As a former homosexual, when I was involved in the 1980s 
promoting the gay agenda, our only focus was to seek tolerance, whereas 
today's political activism has moved from true tolerance into political 
domination and power. It's an amazing thing to watch a group that said they 
were oppressed become oppressors.” 

“Give Homosexual Protectors a ‘Just’ Cause” 

This strategy ties naturally into the almost natural inclination of people on 
the left side of the political spectrum to embrace any group that they become 
convinced has been “wronged” in the past. While there have been groups with 
legitimate grievances (e.g., African-Americans), radical homosexual activists 
have tried to piggyback on these legitimate efforts to right past wrongs to move 
the ball forward for their agenda. They have accomplished this through the 
manipulation of statistics on teen suicide, the creation of a Christian 
boogeyman in the Matthew Shepard tragedy, and so forth. The result is that 
individuals motivated by social justice issues, including some evangelicals, have 
felt that they need to protect practicing homosexuals from a so-called hostile 
society. 

Another natural market for radical homosexual activists to tap in this area 
is Hollywood (see chap. 2 and the previous discussion in this chapter) with its 
liberal sensitivities and large homosexual community. Kirk and Madsen wrote, 
“A media campaign that casts gays as society's victims and encourages straights 
to be their protectors must make it easier for those who respond to assert and 
explain their new perspectives.” 

Just as Hollywood did much in the late 1930s to early 1940s (back when it 
was in more conservative hands) to convince Americans of the need to become 
involved in World War II, and then later in the 1960s to help support the civil 
rights and anti-war movements, it has adopted homosexual behavior as one of 
its latest causes. Therefore, as we will see later, homosexuals are almost always 
innocent — the hero who needs protection in films, television, etc. — while those 
who oppose them are either boorish or religious fanatics. 

But homosexual activists are finding resistance from groups, such as 
African Americans who had legitimate civil rights grievances, to their efforts to 
piggyback homosexual behavior on the decades-long struggle by blacks for 
equal rights. Star Parker, a conservative black activist, writes. 



19 



The gay front would like to be viewed as the latest chapter of the civil 
rights movement. According to their reasoning, gays are America's newest 
oppressed minority, seeking fairness, justice, and the right to pursue 
happiness in the same manner as other social groups in this country. 
Homosexuals today feel they are fighting the same battle that blacks fought 
40 years ago. But, in fact, the gay movement is the civil rights movement 
turned on its head.. ..The civil rights movement of the 1960s was about 
living up and applying our principles, not re-writing or reinventing them. 
There was no tradition on which this country was founded that Dr. King 
challenged. It was upon those very traditions that he made his challenge 
and claim.... In a fashion quite the opposite of Dr. King — who challenged an 
unjust nation to return to its principles and traditions from which it had 
strayed — gay political operatives work to re-write our traditions to suit their 
own proclivities. They say their struggle is about equality, but it's really 
about the exercise of political power and claims for entitlement. 

Even liberal African-American civil rights activists like Jesse Jackson refute 
the claim by homosexual activists that they have legitimate civil rights 
concerns. When asked about the “right” of homosexuals to “marry,” Jackson 
said that there was no comparison with the legitimate civil rights struggles of 
black Americans. Jackson commented: “The comparison with slavery is a 
stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called 
three-fifths human in the Constitution, and in that they did not require the 
Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.” 

“Make Gays Look Good” 
and “Make the Victimizers Look Bad” 

This manifests itself in many ways: from rewriting history to convince 
people that many famous individuals were homosexual to the sympathetic 
portrayal of homosexuals in the media. The other part of this strategy, 
according to Kirk and Madsen, is to “make the victimizers look bad.” Kirk and 
Madsen wrote, “We intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average 
Americans will want to disassociate themselves from such types.” 

Unfortunately, some individuals have played right into the hands of radical 
homosexual activists in helping them bludgeon the Christian community on the 
homosexual issue. In the introduction, we mentioned Fred Phelps and his 
followers who go around the country with signs that read “God Hates Fags,” 
picket funerals of AIDS victims, and host a Web site showing homosexuals 
being thrown into the fire of hell. Others have used less than ideal discernment 
in discussing the homosexual issue in the media. By not practicing Christ-like 
speech, sincere Christians have often been their own worst enemy in assisting 
radical homosexual activists move their agenda forward, especially when they 
are looking for the absolutely worst-case examples to prop up as representatives 
of orthodox and evangelical, Bible-believing Christians. 

This is why the behavior of people of faith must always be above reproach. 
When Christians speak out against homosexual behavior with unconfessed sins 



20 



in our own closets, we only validate the mindset that Christians are hypocrites 
who cannot remove the planks in our own eyes. When believers use less than 
Christ-like speech, we give credence to arguments of homosexual activists that 
we are less than compassionate, to put it nicely. 

* See Matthew 7:3-5. 

None of this means that people of faith should avoid the truth, even 
unpleasant truth, but we must speak the truth in love. 

t See 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Romans 1:24-28; Leviticus 18:22; Psalm 24:3-4. 

Anyone who has followed the agenda of the radical homosexual activists 
for the past ten to fifteen years can see how they have been successful in 
virtually every area mentioned by Kirk and Madsen. In subsequent chapters in 
this book, we will describe how each area of this agenda has been implemented 
in the media, in public schools, the church, and every other aspect of 
contemporary American life. 

In addition, despite the claims that “we are everywhere,” a survey of the 
2000 census data found that more than one-quarter of same-sex households 
were concentrated in five urban areas (listed with the percentage of residents 
who state they are homosexual): New York City: 8.9%, Los Angeles: 6.6%, San 
Francisco: 4.9%, Washington, D.C.: 3.3%, and Chicago: 3.1%. 

* The same Census report stated the cities with the highest concentration of 
same-sex households in proportion to all households in a metropolitan area 
were as follows: San Francisco, California; Santa Fe, New Mexico; Portland, 
Maine; Burlington, Vermont; Seattle, Washington; Miami, Florida; and Austin, 
Texas. 

“Solicit Funds: The Buck Stops Here” 

The other method used by homosexual activists is to falsely accuse the 
other side of having billions of dollars in resources while they are struggling to 
put food on the table. Nothing could be further from the truth. Homosexual 
activist groups are backed by millions of dollars, including generous grants from 
numerous corporations. This ties into their final strategy: “Solicit funds: the 
buck stops here.” 

t The Ford Foundation, for example, has provided grants to the pro-homosexual 
Gill Foundation, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, International Gay 
and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force 
Policy Institute, and the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which 
actively lobbies for same-sex marriage. 

An example of how homosexual activists use money to advance their 
agenda is illustrated through the work of the Gill Foundation, which has $255 
million in assets, in Colorado. Started by Quark software founder Tim Gill (an 
open homosexual) in response to the state's passage of Amendment 2, which 
would have barred special rights and privileges for homosexual behavior, the 
foundation alone has poured at least $800,000 into the Colorado Springs area, 
home of several conservative religious organizations, including Focus on the 



21 



Family. 

The Gill Foundation has provided an additional $3.4 million in grants to 
promote the homosexual agenda through its subsidiary, the Gay and Lesbian 
Fund for Colorado, to groups such as the Easter Seals, the American Lung 
Association, the Urban League, and the Girl Scouts. The money comes with 
strings, however. Each organization that accepts a Gill Foundation grant must 
agree to add homosexual behavior to its anti-discrimination policies and 
publicly credit the fund in its materials. More than $9 million of the 
foundation's money has gone directly to groups such as the Lambda Legal 
Defense and Education Fund, which lobbies for same-sex marriage. In 2001, 
the foundation gave $18.5 million in donations to homosexual organizations 
and causes. 

Will Perkins, who helped spearhead Amendment 2, says, “What the Gill 
Foundation is attempting to do — and they're quite successful at it — is to buy 
legitimacy for the homosexual lifestyle. They've put a lot of money in the 
Springs area, and part of the deal is to neutralize public opinion on homosexual 
behavior, and it's been working.” 

The result has been that in Colorado Springs now a majority of its city 
council members are sympathetic to homosexual behavior, going so far as to 
proclaim a gay pride week in a city that is home to headquarters or regional 
offices for more than seventy-two Christian ministries. In November 2002, the 
Colorado Springs City Council voted to grant same-sex partners tax-funded 
health-care benefits. The transformation from “ground zero” of “hate” (as 
radical homosexual activists called it after the passage of Amendment 2) to 
funding the homosexual agenda was complete. And, with the exception of 
Focus on the Family, the response from the other 70+ Christian ministries in 
town was deafeningly silent. 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has wholeheartedly embraced 
the homosexual agenda and appointed as its new executive director in 2001 
Anthony Romero, who is an openly homosexual person with a record of 
activism. The ACLU boasts of 400,000 members and more than 1,000 
volunteer and 60 staff attorneys. Its various components have a $45 million 
budget, a $50 million endowment fund, which includes a $7 million grant 
from the Ford Foundation, and three hundred chapters nationwide. The 
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, which advocates same-sex marriage 
and has been the leader in the attack against the Boy Scouts (see chap. 8) for its 
policy regarding homosexual scoutmasters, boasts of corporate support from 
IBM and United Airlines. The Human Rights Campaign, which actively lobbies 
for and provides direct financial support to political candidates sympathetic to 
the homosexual agenda, lists American Airlines and Subaru as corporate 
sponsors. 

The Gill Foundation has assets of more than $165 million. The budget of 
the Human Rights Campaign has more than tripled in six short years. David 
Bohnott, a venture capitalist who developed the GeoCities Web site, gave about 



22 



$2 million to the Human Rights Campaign, and Karen Levinson, founder of E- 
Trade, has donated $500,000 to pro-homosexual groups. 

Meanwhile, many Christian organizations are finding themselves in a time 
of financial retrenchment, and the one organization in the state of Arizona 
lobbying for family values finds itself always scrambling to find the cash just to 
keep the doors open. While homosexual activists say they are not the aggressive 
challengers, the fact is that they are the aggressive, well-financed challengers. 

Erie Pollard, the founder of ACT-UP (a militant homosexual group) openly 
admitted that lying was part of the strategy of homosexual activists. He even 
said that Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf was the model used for their strategy. It is 
a strategy of lies and intimidation. Consider the following excerpts from Hitler's 
work: 



[T]he magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, 
since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend 
to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, 
therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more 
easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie 
in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. . a 

[SJomething of even the most insolent lie will always remain and stick 
— a fact which all the great lie-virtuosi and lying-clubs in this world know 
only too well and also make the most treacherous use of.... 

[B]y clever and persevering use of propaganda even heaven can be 
represented as hell to the people, and conversely the most wretched life as 
paradise. 

When you read these quotations, coupled with the strategy outlined by 
Kirk, Madsen, and others to transform American culture to accept homosexual 
behavior and condemn those who hold sincere religious objections to such 
behavior, it might be said that activists have followed a strategy akin to what 
Hitler used back in the 1920s and 1930s to take over Germany. In fact, Kirk and 
Madsen, in the book After the Ball, which fleshed out the strategy discussed in 
“The Overhauling of Straight America,” said regarding advertisements that 
would place homosexuals in a positive light: “It makes no difference that the 
ads [portraying homosexuals as icons of normality] are lies, not to us. ..not to 
bigots.” 

Much of the homosexual agenda has been based on deception. For 
example, while several studies throughout the past ten years have placed the 
percentage of homosexuals at no higher than 1 to 2 percent, homosexual groups 
and their allies continue to cite the now-discredited figure of 10 percent when it 
comes to estimating the percentage of homosexuals in America. Yet, despite 
research to the contrary, homosexual activists continue to push the 10 percent 
figure, or even greater numbers, and government entities and the media seldom, 
if ever, question the inaccuracy of the puffed-up statistic. 

Kirk and Madsen also added that they knew that they would have to wage a 
war of propaganda, just as Hitler did so masterfully in Nazi Germany, to get the 



23 



American public on their side. Here is a direct quote from After the Ball: “We 
have in mind a strategy as calculated and powerful as that which gays are 
accused of pursuing by their enemies — or, if you prefer, a plan as manipulative 
as that which our enemies themselves employ. It's time to leam from Madison 
Avenue, to roll out the big guns. Gays must launch a large-scale campaign — 
we've called it the Waging Peace campaign — to reach straights through the 
mainstream media. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROPAGANDA^ [emphasis 
added]. 

Kirk and Madsen continue: “Even when it sticks to the facts, propaganda 
can be unabashedly subjective and one-sided. There is nothing necessarily 
wrong with this. Propaganda tells its own side of the story as moving (and 
credibly) as possible, since it can count on its enemies to tell the other side 
with a vengeance [another reminder to us about using Christ-like speech to help 
our credibility]. In its battle for hearts and minds, effective propaganda knows 
enough to put its best foot forward. This is what our media campaign must 
do.” 



In the chapters following, we will see how the homosexual activists have 
successfully implemented Kirk and Madsen's propaganda campaign in the 
media, the public schools, the medical profession, corporate America, the 
workplace, and most of all, the church. In fact, the activists have followed this 
plan to the letter. They have achieved the goals they set out in the late eighties 
through careful coordination and relentless effort. As a result, the very future of 
our nation is at risk if the homosexual agenda continues to advance unchecked. 



24 



CHAPTER TWO 



That’s Entertainment? 



A Martian gathering evidence about American society, simply 
by monitoring our television, would certainly assume that there were 
more gay people in America than there are evangelical Christians. 

— Michael Medved 



Will & Grace is one of the highest rated comedies on network television. It has 
won a slew of Emmy awards and is part of NBC's “Must See TV” promotion on 
Thursday nights, following in the footsteps of such classic shows as The Cosby 
Show and Family Ties. 

It is also the most upfront show on network television in regard to the 
promotion of homosexual behavior. In fact, the stars of Will & Grace even got 
involved politically, cutting an advertisement in 2000 urging California voters to 
oppose Proposition 22, which stated that California would only recognize 
marriages between one man and one woman. The star, Eric McCormick, who 
plays the openly homosexual Will, stated the intentions of the producers early 
on. He said, “I would love to get to the point where grandmothers in Kansas are 
saying, ‘I just hope that Will finds a nice man.’ We're not a political show, but 
that would be a real coup.” 

In one particularly egregious episode of the show, John and Anne Paulk are 
mercilessly mocked. When one of the lead characters attends a meeting of ex- 
homosexuals, he meets the leader of the group who talks about how they are all 
going to be restored to “righteousness.” After incessant taunting by the 
homosexual character, all the ex-homosexuals in the room return to homosexual 
behavior, and the leader does as well, accepting a date with the homosexual. 

After this show aired, Mike Haley, a former homosexual who works at 
Focus on the Family, sent the following letter to Jon Kinnally, the executive 
story editor of Will & Grace: 

Dear Mr. Kinnally: 

I am writing to request a meeting with you regarding a recent episode 
of Will & Grace. The show in question grossly misrepresented thousands of 
individuals struggling to come out of homosexuality. As a former gay man, 
and now a national spokesman and expert on homosexuality and youth 
issues for Focus on the Family — one of the country's largest organizations, 
who, among other things, assists gays and lesbians who desire to be 
heterosexual — I know first-hand how frustrating and painful it is to be 
mocked by those who haven't taken the time to find out what the process 



25 



is all about. I'm specifically talking about references in the show to former 
homosexuals, and those wrestling with their sexual identity, as “freaks,” 
“selfloathing closet cases,” “morally wrong,” and as members of “cults.” 
Nowhere in this episode are we portrayed as honest men and women 
seeking help. 

You may vehemently disagree with this position, but I'd at least like 
the opportunity to sit down and talk to you about it. Our conversation may 
not change your mind about the possibility of coming out of 
homosexuality, but at the very least it will put a real face behind the 
caricature you depicted on prime-time TV. And in the end, hopefully it will 
encourage you to think twice before ridiculing the belief systems of those 
who differ from you. With that in mind, please respectfully consider my 
request. 

The last thing Mike received was respect, based on the reply on Will & 
Grace letterhead he received: 

Dear Mr. Haley: 

I received your letter dated June 9, and was very interested in your 
point of view. The issues you raised are the very same ones that we on the 
Will & Grace writing staff debate on a daily basis. Our decision to present 
the story on the ex-gay ministry was solely in the interest of creating the 
most comedic episode possible. And it was certainly not our intention to 
offend you in any way. But come on, Mike, even you've got to admit that 
fags trying to pretend they're straight is pretty funny. 

In response to your request for a meeting, well, I think I can read 
between the lines on that one. I'm about 6'1", brown hair, green eyes, and 
I'm into rollerblading, baking cookies, and cleaning up afterwards. My 
dislikes include game-playing, negative attitudes, and condoms. 

If any of this interests you, I can be found every Sunday at the Brunch 
and Beer Bust at the Motherlode in West Hollywood. I do hope you show, 
because like you, I am an expert on homosexuality, and in my expert 
opinion, this “hard-to-get thing” you're playing is Hot, Hot, Hot! 

Mike had written a serious and thoughtful letter and was treated with a 
mocking sexual proposition in reply. This response shows not only the hostility 
of homosexual activists in the entertainment industry to traditional values and 
those who have overcome homosexual behavior, but also the general tone in 
the entertainment media to anyone who objects to homosexual behavior. What 
was communicated to Mike in a letter is what is communicated on the small 
screen every week. 

Will & Grace is an example of Kirk and Madsen's stated strategy to use the 
media to help desensitize Americans to homosexual behavior. Perhaps 
nowhere else has the homosexual activist movement had more success than in 
gaining control of the entertainment media to promote its agenda. 

* In 2003, shows such as Queer Eye for the Straight Guy and It's All Relative made 
their debuts on cable and network television. Both of these shows portrayed 



26 



homosexuals in a positive light while ridiculing heterosexuals or people with 
religious beliefs that do not affirm homosexual behavior. An episode of ESPN's 
Playmakers about a homosexual football player ended with a recitation of the 
Twenty-third Psalm in support of his behavior. 

For example, alarming statistics are coming to the forefront that document 
the role that the media has played in the growing acceptance of homosexual 
behavior and its effect on American society. 

Using data from the National Opinion Research Center at the University of 
Chicago, the study showed that in 1988, 74.9 percent of respondents said that 
sex between two people of the same sex is always wrong. By 1998, that number 
had dropped to 54.6 percent. The number of women who said they had had a 
sexual encounter with another woman rose from 0.2 percent to 2.8 percent, 
while the percentages of men having a sexual encounter with another man rose 
from 1.7 percent to 4.1 percent. 

t A “sexual encounter” does not mean the person engaging in the act was a 
“homosexual,” nor did many of those who had an encounter repeatedly 
replicate the behavior. 

Amy Butler, a professor at the University of Iowa, explained some of the 
reasons why the increase in homosexual behavior had occurred: “Declining 
social, legal, and economic sanctions against same-gender sexual behavior in 
recent years and more positive images of gay men and women in the media may 
have made it easier for people to recognize their same-gender sexual interest 
and act upon it.^MThe Associated Press report on the study added: “Whether 
more positive media portrayals play a role in the increasing reports of 
homosexual activity is hard to determine, Butler said. For certain, the media 
wouldn't put shows on television or produce movies that portray gay lifestyles if 
the public wasn't willing to accept it, she said. Her study says the way gays and 
lesbians appear in the media may make some people more comfortable with 
their homosexual impulses.” 

For many young people, the open promotion of homosexual behavior in 
the media and the classroom, along with the breakdown of the traditional 
family, has led to their “coming out” at younger and younger ages. 

* A new teenage lesbian pop duo named Tatu recently reached the top of 
England's pop charts and have closed in on the American Top 20. They strip and 
kiss between songs and dress in revealing school girl outfits. Their “discoverer,” 
a Russian psychologist named Ivan Shapovalov, says: “All our inspiration is from 
childhood. Why should this be hidden?... They are two teenagers singing about 
love.” Shapovalov then accused those who have spoken out about the group 
and its lesbian pedophile image as “prudes.” See Sabrina Tavemise, “A 
Bubblegum Duo Sets Off Squeals and Squirms,” New York Times, March 4, 2003. 

Not a New Phenomenon 

We would be incorrect if we stated that homosexual behavior was a fairly 
recent phenomenon in Hollywood. 



27 



Hollywood has long had a large homosexual contingent, and, as a result, 
many there have had a natural sympathy for the homosexual cause. That is why 
you see old-time Hollywood stars such as Elizabeth Taylor and Debbie Reynolds 
support radical homosexual organizations. Taylor has said, “Without 
homosexuals there would be no Hollywood, no theater and no arts.” 

t At least one veteran Hollywood star has had the courage to stand up to 
Hollywood's liberal agenda. Actress Jane Russell said at a recent national 
conference that she was tired of Christian conservatives being labeled intolerant 
when they stand up for their beliefs. “The Lord put this country together or we 
wouldn't be like we are,” Russell said. See Marc Morano, “Hollywood Actress 
Declares Herself ‘Right-Wing Christian Bigot,” CNSNews.com, February 3, 2003. 

It is well known that some of the most famous writers, directors, and other 
creative talent from Hollywood's so-called golden era engaged in homosexual 
behavior. However, these facts were well concealed from the general public 
who would have heartily disapproved. Ramon Navarro, the star of the silent 
version of Ben Hur was a practicing homosexual. William Haines, another star 
of the late twenties and early thirties, publicly disclosed his homosexual 
behavior, and it immediately ended his career (back in the days when 
homosexual behavior was frowned upon by the general public). Greta Garbo 
was a notorious bisexual, equally promiscuous with both men and women. 
Montgomery Clift and Rock Hudson, screen icons of the 1950s, practiced 
homosexual behavior. 

George Cukor, director of such films as A Star Is Bom, The Women, and The 
Philadelphia Story, was one of the first publicly acknowledged homosexuals in 
Hollywood. He was the so-called women's director because of his gentle, 
feminine ways. Clark Gable asked for Cukor's removal from the set of Gone 
With the Wind because of his personal discomfort with Cukor's homosexuality 
and had him replaced with the vigorously heterosexual Victor Fleming. Today, 
Gable (the biggest star of his era) would be labeled a homophobe and 
blacklisted from Hollywood because of his actions. In fact, in perhaps a belated 
attempt to extract some revenge from the “King,” as he was called, radical 
homosexual activists now claim that Gable was bisexual, despite the 
numerous stories told by Joan Crawford, Loretta Young, and many other of his 
leading ladies about his very virile heterosexuality The King must be rolling in 
his grave. 

Besides Gable, other Hollywood icons, such as Cary Grant, have seen their 
lives rewritten by radical homosexual activists, despite long histories of 
heterosexual behavior. 

Despite the prevalence of homosexual behavior (as well as promiscuous 
heterosexual behavior) in Hollywood's history, the golden age was a different 
era. Homosexual behavior was not openly promoted on screen, and when it was 
implied, it was done so in a humorous fashion. There were stereotypical 
homosexual characters in movies, most notably Edward Everett Horton's fussy 
characters in the Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers musicals The Gay Divorcee, Top 
Hat, and Shall We Dance (Horton himself was a well-known homosexual in 



28 



Hollywood). Franklin Pangbom's cowardly actions in W. C. Fields' films and 
Gus Schilling's effeminate male secretary in the Astaire/Rita Hayworth film You 
Were Never Lovelier are more examples. 

However, these characters tended to be comic relief, and their behavior 
was implied, not openly promoted as a viable alternative to heterosexuality or 
as something to be admired and followed. They were portrayed much like a 
dotty old aunt whose eccentric behavior is to be winked at. 

While many cultural observers point to the 1990s as the time when the 
portrayal of active homosexuals came “out of the closet,” so to speak, it was in 
the late 1960s that a significant shift started to happen in Hollywood's portrayal 
of homosexual behavior. 

In 1967, the movie Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, starring Richard Burton 
and Elizabeth Taylor, was released. Written by the homosexual playwright 
Edward Albee, it trashed traditional marriage as it portrayed a warring couple 
who had nothing but the most absolute contempt for each other. It went on to 
win Best Picture that year. 

* Alan has debated Albee on a program that aired on PBS where Albee expanded 
his attack on traditional marriage to include support for pornography (even 
including taxpayer funded support for it). 

In the same year, Norman Lear, who later created and produced All in the 
Family, released Divorce American Style, with Dick Van Dyke and Debbie 
Reynolds, which also openly mocked the institution of marriage. The door had 
been opened to the weakening of marriage in the mass media and the exaltation 
of alternative lifestyles. Once marriage was attacked, other sexual behaviors, 
such as premarital and homosexual sex, were not only seen and promoted as 
viable options but as more desirable than the institution that God had intended 
for mankind. The Pandora's box had been opened. 

Homosexual Behavior on Network Television 

In 1971, the CBS television network, in an attempt to appeal to young, 
urban viewers with disposable incomes, purged its schedule of such light- 
humored shows as The Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres, Hogan's Heroes, Petticoat 
Junction, and The Andy Griffith Show. These fairly conservative and generally 
family-friendly shows were replaced by the loud, raucous, in-your-face 
liberalism of Norman Lear's All in the Family and Maude and the elite contempt 
for authority sensibilities of Larry Gelbart's M*A*S*H. 

(The movie M*A*S*H was not the first but was definitely the most blatant 
film to that date to openly ridicule Christianity in its portrayal of Frank Bums 
as a Bible-reading, adulterous hypocrite. In one scene he is reading the Twenty- 
third Psalm, and his tentmates make demeaning and obscene comments about 
the Bible and his faith. The television program started down this road in the first 
two seasons but eventually painted religious faith in a more positive manner in 
the character of Father Mulcahy as long as his faith was liberal and did not 
suggest moral absolutes.) 



29 



t The attacks by Hollywood on Christians started in earnest in 1960 with the 
release of Elmer Gantry and Inherit the Wind. Christians were portrayed as either 
corrupt or ignorant buffoons. 

Part of this new “hipness” was the sexualization of network comedy, until 
everything seemingly became a joke about sex. Much of this new emphasis 
came from an influx of homosexual writers and directors. However, it would be 
erroneous to say that it took until the 1990s for this new direction to be used to 
promote homosexual behavior on network television. 

In an early episode of All in the Family, the “enlightened” liberal characters 
invite a seemingly stereotypical homosexual friend over to the Bunker house for 
dinner with the conservative and bigoted Archie. Archie immediately engages in 
the type of behavior that would be described today as “homophobic.” The 
friend is straight, of course, and Archie ends up with egg on his face. Later on, 
Archie retreats to his neighborhood bar to be with “real men,” one of whom is a 
tough-as-nails former football player and a “man's man” Archie admires. As the 
episode unfolds, Archie eventually realizes that this man's man practices 
homosexual behavior, and he is forced to rethink his stereotype of 
homosexuals. 

A 1977 episode dealt with the death of Edith's lesbian cousin and the 
issues surrounding the leaving of her estate to her lover. Another episode 
featured the “hate crime” murder at Christmas time of a transvestite whom the 
Bunkers had come to know, shaking Edith's faith in God. 

In 1974, the TV show M*A*S*H aired an episode titled “George,” which 
served as a precursor to the attempt to allow individuals who engage in 
homosexual behavior to serve openly in the armed forces. George arrives at the 
4077 th M*A*S*H hospital badly bruised and cut up. Both Hawkeye and Trapper 
John, the two liberal doctors, suspect that they are not normal war wounds and 
that the guys beat him up in his platoon for being “different” (i.e., homosexual). 
Of course, the conservative, hypocritical Frank Bums figures out George's secret 
and attempts to have him dmmmed out of the military. Hawkeye and Trapper 
John then dig up a secret on Frank (he cheated on his medical exams) and 
blackmail him to allow George to continue to serve, otherwise they will air 
Frank's dirty laundry and get him thrown out of the military on a dishonorable 
discharge. George is painted in the most sympathetic of lights, while Frank is 
shown to be narrowminded, hypocritical, and bigoted. 

In the late '70s, in an attempt to catch up with the new direction launched 
by CBS, the ABC television network aired the then controversial program Soap, 
which was filled with sexual humor. It also introduced the first openly 
homosexual regular character on network television, Jodie Dallas, portrayed by 
comedian Billy Crystal, and America met his “boyfriend.” 

While most media observers cite Ellen as the first show to feature an 
openly homosexual leading character, they are in error. In 1981, NBC aired Love, 
Sydney starring Tony Randall as an openly homosexual commercial artist. His 
sexuality was played down after initial public backlash and was only brought 
back into story lines when the program was on its last legs. 



30 



In 1983, in the first season of Cheers on NBC, an episode ran that featured 
a group of homosexuals who start frequenting the bar, much to the discomfort 
and alarm of the “regulars.” At first, the regulars will have nothing to do with 
the homosexuals and force them to sit in a secluded area of the bar. However, 
Diane, the enlightened barmaid, takes up the cause of the homosexual 
characters and eventually shows the regulars how ridiculous their behavior is. 
The episode ends with the homosexual and heterosexual characters embracing 
each other and joining together for a round of drinks. 

There is a definite link here. All the shows mentioned above were 
comedies. Homosexual activists have noticed very astutely that the use of 
humor is a primary vehicle to help them reach their goal of cultural acceptance. 
Humor had been used by the entertainment industry in the past to stir up anti- 
war sentiment (the Marx Brothers' Duck Soup, M*A*S*H, Dr. Strangelove) and to 
promote feminism (Nine to Five) and cross-dressing (Some Like It Hot and 
Tootsie). 

Homosexual producers and directors readily admit that humor is their best 
weapon to soften up the American public for the future promotion of their 
agenda. If you can get people to laugh about something, you are then on the 
way to convincing them to accept the behavior as normal. Thus, the portrayal of 
homosexual behavior gradually moved into prime-time dramas, such as ABC's 
thirty-some thing, the first show to portray two men in bed together. 

For many years, the number-one prime-time comedy was Friends, a show 
about oversexed heterosexuals, which was produced by an open homosexual. In 
one episode, the ex-wife of one of the heterosexual leads marries her lesbian 
lover in a ceremony officiated by Newt Gingrich's lesbian sister, Candice. A 
pointed political statement is made in the midst of all the laughter. 

* Newt Gingrich is the former Speaker of the House of Representatives and a 
Republican. 

When homosexual activists and their allies cannot use overt means to 
promote homosexual behavior, they often resort to so-called “camp humor” 
with the underlying homosexual themes. In the early 1980s, Alan saw firsthand 
homosexual “camp humor” as he prosecuted hard core obscenity cases in 
federal court. 

For instance, in one case, one of the materials purchased from the 
defendants (who at the time controlled the largest distribution network for hard 
core pornography in the world) was a graphic series of illustrations of 
homosexual sexual behavior of every type imaginable (and beyond Alan's 
imagination). These illustrations were accompanied with violent imagery of 
beating, stomping, and kicking of a very young-looking man or teenager by an 
older, more powerful man dressed in black leather. The subsequent depictions 
of bruising and serious injury ended with the victim being abandoned naked and 
unconscious in a forest. 

The professional obscenity defense lawyers, who had been assembled from 
across the nation to, in their words, “defend the First Amendment,” called an 



31 



expert witness. This individual was a professor from Johns Hopkins University 
and was called to prove a claim by the defense that such violent material was 
not obscene, could not be interpreted as obscene, and, in fact, was high 
comedy. 

Under oath, and with a straight face, the professor went through one 
graphic depiction of sex and violence after another, explaining that the 
depictions were nothing more than homosexual “camp humor.” He explained in 
detail how everyone in the enlightened homosexual community who saw this 
material would laugh and wink because to them it was an “inside joke” that 
would leave “ignorant straights” puzzled. The “straights” would then stupidly 
think that it was actually a dirty depiction of men fighting and engaging in 
sodomy. 

The grinning Ph.D. went on to explain to the jury that homosexuals 
throughout the entertainment industry love to have fun with “straight 
ignorance” by inserting homosexual “inside jokes” into scripts and visual 
imagery (such as having a homosexual man play the lead romantic role with a 
female). Thus, the homosexuals in the entertainment industry and their friends 
would see and understand these “jokes” and laugh while foolish “straights” who 
oppose homosexual behavior ignorantly watch, pay for, and share with their 
children the inside jokes. 

What the professor could not explain, of course, was the impact of viewing 
such violent sex material by those who weren't in on the so-called “joke,” or 
insiders to “campiness,” such as the young boys, who are the largest consumers 
of hard-core pornography. 

* The case resulted in a 11-1 hung jury. Before the retrial, the defendants pled 
guilty to federal felony charges, admitting that the “humorous” material was 
legally obscene). See the Final Report of the Attorney General's Commission on 
Pornography for more information. 

As we stated earlier in the introduction, Alan learned later of the lack of 
respect and the total disgust within the pornographic production community for 
those who practice homosexual behavior. These peddlers of human flesh would 
greatly exploit their weaknesses for profit. Alan believes that those who produce 
and sell obscene material have their own form of “camp humor” — the taking of 
millions of dollars from persons caught up in homosexual behavior (who the 
pomographers hate) through the production of ever more effective, more 
arousing materials and opportunities to financially exploit homosexual sexual 
desires. 

But let's get back to the idea that making people laugh about homosexual 
behavior leads to desensitization toward homosexual behavior. 

Given the theory that making people laugh about homosexual behavior 
leads to desensitization, is it any wonder that the boldest pro-homosexual move 
by Hollywood happened with Ellen DeGeneres, a comedian on her program 
Ellen? 

Ellen had floundered for several years, never really being a hit. Ellen 



32 



DeGeneres's sexuality was one of the worst-kept secrets in Hollywood. To 
help spike the ratings of the program, ABC ran a season-long tease through 
promotional announcements and trial balloons in major news publications 
about the character of Ellen coming out. Finally, in the May sweeps, the so- 
called “puppy” episode was aired, which unveiled Ellen's lesbianism, with the 
help of several major Hollywood stars. The character of Ellen's coming out 
was coupled with Ellen DeGeneres's own public announcement on the cover of 
Time magazine, which read simply, “Yep, I'm Gay.” 

After high ratings, especially in urban areas with large homosexual 
populations, for the coming-out episode, Ellen quickly sank lower in the ratings 
than it was before, as it became a soapbox for the promotion of lesbian 
behavior. In one episode, Ellen expresses her love for her “girlfriend” and gets 
on one knee and proposes to her. Even in 1998, that was a little too much for 
America to take. Still, Hollywood refused to acknowledge that the show's 
demise could have been blamed on its promotion of lesbian behavior and 
instead insisted that it was “too preachy.” 

Despite the failure of Ellen, along with other notable duds featuring other 
stars playing homosexual characters, network television continues to 
relentlessly push the homosexual agenda. In fact, only one network show. Will 
& Grace, that promotes homosexual behavior, has been a hit. The Gay and 
Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) now claims that there are more 
than thirty prime-time television characters who are openly homosexual. It 
also claims to “control” Hollywood, having full script approval over the 
portrayal of homosexual behavior. The result is that homosexual characters 
are often depicted as the most likable and emotionally healthy characters on 
prime-time television. This is done deliberately in order to normalize 
homosexual behavior to Americans. Michael Medved stated, “We're in the 
Sydney Poitier stage of ‘gay’ characters.... [I]n the 1950s, 60s, and early 70s, 
every major black character was upright and honorable and likely portrayed by 
Poitier.... [T] here's such eagerness in the gay community for a sort of 
compensatory treatment, that every character you meet that's gay is going to be 
likeable.” He added, “A Martian gathering evidence about American society, 
simply by monitoring our television, would certainly assume that there were 
more gay people in America than there are evangelical Christians.” 

Graphic Portrayal 

The latest salvo in the relentless promotion of homosexual behavior on 
network and cable television is the introduction of “transgendered” characters. 
The since-canceled CBS show The Education of Max Bickford, starring Oscar 
winner Richard Dreyfuss, introduced a character named Steve who undergoes a 
sex-change operation and becomes Erica. 

GLAAD, which monitors homosexual portrayals like hawks, sent a letter to 
the media outlining a list of do's and don'ts for writing about the character of 
Erica (portrayed by actress Helen Shaver). The letter suggested: 



33 



• Do use female pronouns when referring to Erica. 

• Don't use quotation marks around [the words] female, woman, Erica, or 
female pronouns when referring to Helen Shaver's character. 

Included in the packet of material the media received was a list of 
“problematic terminology” such as “she-male,” “he-she,” “trannie,” “tranny,” and 
“gender-bender.” Instead, the letter stated that “transition” should be used 
instead of “sex change” and “intersex person” instead of “hermaphrodite.” 

GLAAD spokesman Scott Seomin proudly said that the organization had 
done a similar mailing to the media after Hillary Swank was nominated for an 
Oscar for playing a girl who makes herself into a boy in Boys Don't Cry. (Swank 
won the Oscar and gave an acceptance speech promoting transgender rights). 

Could you imagine the uproar that might happen if the Southern Baptist 
Convention sent out a letter to the media stating that they should not use the 
words fundamentalist, bigot, Bible thumper, or intolerant to describe evangelical 
Christians? The howls of censorship would be heard from coast to coast, but 
that illustrates the control radical homosexual activists have over Hollywood. 

The promotion of homosexual, bisexual, and “transgendered” characters 
has become so universal on network and cable television that even pro- 
homosexual members of the media get confused. Consider these comments 
from Matthew Gilbert of the Boston Globe: 

Claire Fisher is straight — or is she? As season four of [HBO's] Six Feet 
Under unfolds, the show's caustic art student is fanning her flames for a 
slamming lesbian poet named Edie. Meanwhile, Claire's terminally bummed 
exboyfriend, Russell, is chasing after her, despite his gay tryst with their 
bombastic professor, Olivier.... 

Talk about switch-hitting. These days, it's getting harder to hang sexual 
orientation labels on TV characters. ...Writers on Queer as Folk, The L Word, 
and Nip/Tuck have been boldly creating men and women who fall some- 
where between the extremes of the Kinsey scale — exclusively homosexual 
or exclusively heterosexual. ...The blurring of the lines of sexual orientation 
is a step beyond “Gay TV”. ...The sexually indefinite characters aren't 
closeted gays and lesbians, running from their true selves, struggling to 
accept the inevitable. They're more curious-seeking than that, and less 
tortured. They're “questioning,” as a number of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and 
Transgender organizations have put it. Yep, TV is beginning to include the 
LGBT and Q community in its electronic embrace. 

Another method used to promote homosexual behavior is to get two 
attractive heterosexual actresses to lock lips, especially in movies and TV shows 
geared to teenagers. We have been treated to Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy the 
Vampire Slayer) and an attractive female exchanging a passionate kiss in the 
teen sex movie Cruel Intentions, Jennifer Aniston and Winona Ryder engaging 
in a prolonged kiss on Friends, and Calista Flockhart kissing another female 
character on Ally McBeal. If two seemingly “with-it,” glamorous, sexy women 
engage in lesbian behavior, it is then demystified and not seen as odd or 



34 



relegated to those who would be considered less than physically attractive. 

And the trend is moving into so-called “family friendly” programming. 
Several years ago, the WB Network launched The Gilmore Girls as a so-called 
“wholesome” program in response to the concern of many advertisers about the 
ever-rising amount of sex and violence on television. The New York Post 
reported in April 2004, “It's not television's first lesbian kiss, but it ranks with 
the most shocking. ...The WB cures fan's spring fever with a Sapphic smooch 
between... over-achieving star Rory and her roommate Paris.” The article goes on 
to state that the two girls go to Florida for a spring break and a dance party, and 
“the butch Paris plants one on her demurring pal.” 

Once you get past network television, all boundaries quickly disappear. On 
the Showtime pay network, the first episode of the show Queer as Folk depicted 
a thirty-year-old homosexual man having sex with a seventeen-year-old boy. 
Showtime also added a series promoting lesbianism called The L Word. Lifetime 
bills itself as the “women's network” but repeatedly airs programs that promote 
lesbian behavior and alternative families. 

Noggin, a cable channel owned by media conglomerate Viacom (which also 
owns CBS, MTV, Nickelodeon, and other networks), beamed a Canadian drama, 
Degrassi: The Next Generation into American homes. The drama featured two 
male homosexual teens “falling in love” with each other. Actor John Breger, age 
eighteen, who plays one of the homosexual teens, said, “People grow up now 
with the idea of coming out and stuff like that. It's not such a surprise when 
they do. Our generation is growing up seeing it happen.” 

The March 29, 2004, edition of the Wall Street Journal announced the 
intention of Viacom, Inc., chairman and chief executive Summer Redstone to 
launch an “all-gay” cable network. The Journal reported, “Viacom's renewed 
interest comes amid a surge in popularity of gay characters and gay-themed 
shows on television in the past few years. ...The gay audience is an increasingly 
attractive one for advertisers [more on this later], spending nearly $500 billion 
a year, according to Prime Access, Inc., a gay and lesbian advertising and 
marketing agency in New York. Average U.S. income is 8 percent higher in gay 
households than straight ones, according to Forrester Research, Inc.” 

The article continues about the possible skepticism by homosexuals of a 
“watered down” network that would appeal to heterosexuals as well. Joe Flint, 
the author of the article, writes, “To show that it isn't a gay channel trying to 
build crossover appeal to a straight audience, Viacom probably will need to 
explore controversial issues like gay marriage and adoption.” 

“It's about time somebody went after that audience with a network,” media 
analyst Tom Wolzien says. “It's an important segment of the audience that has 
been traditionally underserved.” 

Stephanie Gibbons, Showtime's (which is owned by Viacom) senior vice 
president for advertising and promotion, added, “It's just a continued evolution 
of something we've been doing for a long time.” 

Brent Bozell, head of the Media Research Center, correctly pointed out that 



35 



the last thing the entertainment industry has done is “underserve” homosexuals. 
He wrote, “Let's understand something here. This is not some kind of 
affirmative action proposal to bring gays into Hollywood. They're there, at every 
level, already. This is a move to promote the homosexual lifestyle to the 
public.... Far from being ‘underserved,’ gays have been pampered and catered to. 
Seemingly everywhere you turn you find the gay character, the gay theme, the 
gay argument inserted, and so often for no reason other than to placate the gay 
community. As the pundit Camille Paglia put it a few years ago, ‘Entertainment, 
media, and the arts are non-stop advertisements for homosexuality these 
days.’” 

Bozell then described what we are in for, citing the example of PrideVision 
in Canada: 

So what might we expect from the proposed gay cable channels? In 
the online magazine Slate, Michael Joseph Gross looks at PrideVision TV, a 
nearly five-month-old Canadian gay cable network.... “Pride Vision,” relates 
Gross, “addresses the diversity issue with shows like ‘You Don't Know D — 
k,’ a documentary about female-to-male transsexuals.. ..As far as the sex 
goes, PrideVision is fairly soaked in it. ‘Hard-core erotica,’ for both gay men 
and lesbians is [shown] at midnight... and a men's soft-core pom feature at 
10:30 p.m., called ‘Steamy Knights’ is the channel's top-rated show. 
PrideVision also offers pomdressed-as-documentary; one show called 
‘Urinal,’ explores the ‘policing of washroom sex in Ontario.’” Near the close 
of his story, Gross gets to the heart of the matter: “News programs, talk 
shows, and dramas (on any U.S. gay network) will have to be fearlessly 
candid about the centrality of sex in much of gay life for gay viewers to take 
them seriously” [emphasis added]. 

Bozell then nailed the target when he concludes: “Think of all the gay men 
you've heard equate their sexual orientation with ‘who I am’ or ‘what I am.’ 
Then try to remember if you've ever heard a straight man say the same thing. 
Sex is important to the typical heterosexual, but the difference between 
‘important’ and ‘central’ is, undeniably, vast. So, too, is the difference between 
the way heterosexuality has always been discussed on television and how 
homosexuality is portrayed on a gay channel.” 

Viacom went ahead with their plans and announced on May 25, 2004, that 
their MTV Network Division would launch LOGO, a new cable network 
specifically targeted to homosexual audiences. The network will start on 
February 17, 2005. Tom Freston, chairman and CEO of MTV Networks, said, 
“Creating a network specifically for the LGBT community is something we've 
wanted to do for a long, long time, and it's an idea we feel is overdue. ...We have 
big plans and hopes for LOGO, and I'm thrilled to announce its arrival.” 

Perhaps the silver lining in all of this is, as Bozell pointed out, that a gay 
channel will show the American public the real version of homosexual life, a life 
based on rampant sex and despair, rather than the whitewashed portrayals 
presently shown on network television. 

Homosexual Portrayals on the Silver Screen 



36 



Up until this point we have focused on how the homosexual agenda has 
been pushed on television. We are now going to turn our focus to what has 
occurred on the silver screen. 

While homosexual-themed movies were becoming staples in European 
cinemas in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the subject was still pretty much 
taboo in America. Only one major film, 1962's The Children's Hour with Audrey 
Hepburn and Shirley MacLaine, went near the subject of homosexual behavior. 
It was considered boxoffice and public relations poison by Hollywood to 
produce a movie with blatant homosexual themes. 

The first toe in the water, so to speak, was in 1978 with the movie Making 
Love. It was the first film to show two men in bed with each other and was a 
film that took years to make since no up-and-coming young actor, such as 
Harrison Ford or Michael Douglas, would go near the movie because of the 
effect it would have had on his career. (This is quite a change from 2004 
when several leading men seem to be trying to “out-gay” each other.) 
Eventually, two unknowns at the time, Harry Hamlin and Michael Ontkean, took 
the parts in the movie, which dealt with a man leaving his wife for another man. 
It was a financial dud at the box office. 

So Hollywood decided that America wasn't quite ready for the sight of two 
men in bed together and decided to push the agenda in a less direct way: cross- 
dressing comedies featuring heterosexual characters. Thus, we were given 
Tootsie with Dustin Hoffman portraying a man masquerading as a woman to get 
a job on a soap opera, Mrs. Doubtfire with Robin Williams disguising himself as 
a frumpy nanny so he can spend time with his children, and Victor/Victoria 
about a woman, played by Julie Andrews, who dresses up as a male 
impersonator. 

Again, all of these films were successful comedies, designed to soften up 
America for the coming onslaught. 

The breakthrough film for the homosexual agenda was Philadelphia (1993) 
starring Tom Hanks. The makers of the film deliberately went out of their way 
to find the most likable actor possible (Hanks — who has been compared to a 
modern-day Jimmy Stewart) in order to push their agenda that AIDS was a 
civil rights rather than a public health issue and that homosexuals are victims of 
discrimination. Every major news magazine trumpeted the movie, and the entire 
Hollywood publicity machine and homosexual community got behind it to 
ensure that it was a success. Hanks was nominated and won Best Actor for the 
role. In his rambling acceptance speech, Hanks gave tribute to his homosexual 
drama teacher. 

Philadelphia opened the floodgates and gave us subsequent movies such as 
The Birdcage, which depicted Robin Williams and Nathan Lane as two 
homosexual partners who faced rejection from their ultraconservative families, 
and In and Out, inspired by Hanks's speech and which dealt with a high school 
teacher who is “outed” during an acceptance speech. The film featured a 
prolonged kiss between actors Kevin Kline and Tom Selleck. Again, both of 



37 



these films were comedies and pushed the envelope a little further. 

In 1999 Hollywood came “totally out.” In fact, the Academy Awards in 
early 2000 seemed to be like a three-and-one-half-hour infomercial for the 
homosexual agenda. Hillary Swank won Best Actress for Boys Don't Cry, in which 
she played a transgendered person, a girl who dresses up as a boy and is 
eventually murdered in a so-called hate crime. In her acceptance speech, she 
gave an impassioned plea for tolerance and for transgender rights, stating, “His 
legacy always lives on through our movie to remind us to always be ourselves, 
to follow our hearts, to not conform.” On the same night, the film American 
Beauty, written by an open homosexual, and which denigrated marriage, 
promoted statutory rape, full teenage female nudity, and homosexual behavior, 
won Best Picture. 

In 2004, actress Charlize Theron won the Best Actress Award for playing a 
lesbian in the movie Monster. And, at the 2004 GLAAD Movie Awards, Sharon 
Osbourne, the wife of rocker Ozzy Osbourne, said, “My only regret in life is that 
none of my children are gay.” Singer Alanis Morissette stated that she was 
becoming a licensed minister via an online course so she could indulge in her 
“fantasy” to “many some of my gay couple friends.” At the awards ceremony, 
GLAAD announced its new campaign to promote same-sex “marriage.” 

Where does this constant drumbeat promoting homosexual behavior lead? 
The natural conclusion is what we reported earlier in this chapter: that more 
and more Americans are engaging in homosexual behavior, especially young 
people. Just as Hollywood glamorized smoking back in the 1930s and '40s, 
and then promoted illegal drug use in the '60s and '70s, it is now making 
homosexual behavior the in thing to emulate. In both of the previous cases, 
Hollywood eventually was repudiated for its positive depictions of these 
behaviors, as people died of lung cancer and kids overdosed on drugs. 

Will the same thing eventually happen with the portrayals of homosexual 
behavior, as people die early from sexually transmitted diseases and generations 
of children grow up sexually confused? Based on the evidence so far, we doubt 
it. Hollywood has been relentless in its promotion of high-risk behavior that, in 
many cases, leads to early death. 

An entire book could be written on the subject of the entertainment 
industry's promotion of homosexual behavior, but it is our goal to give you a 
brief overview of each subject so that you understand the number of cultural 
fronts in which the homosexual agenda is being pushed. We need to go back to 
words of Kirk and Madsen who stated that a media campaign would be the 
linchpin for their efforts to desensitize Americans to homosexual behavior. As 
we have seen in this chapter, that campaign has been relentless, and many of 
the gains made by homosexual activists to promote their agenda and restrict 
religious freedom have been made in movies, television, and other 
entertainment media. 

In the next chapter, we will look at what is perhaps the most alarming front 
in this battle: the promotion of homosexual behavior to impressionable school 
children. 



38 



CHAPTER THREE 



“Stupid” Parents, “Enlightened” Kids 



The fear of the religious right is that the schools of today will be 
the governments of tomorrow. And you know, they're right. 

If we do our jobs right, we're going to raise a generation of kids 
who don't believe the claims of the religious right. 

— Speakers at the 1999 Gay, Lesbian, Straight Educational Network conference 



One day, during his biology class, Kyle's teacher stated that homosexual 
behavior was genetic. Kyle immediately raised his hand to disagree. The teacher, 
a self-professed bisexual who had testified in support of civil unions in 
Vermont, immediately ridiculed and humiliated him in front of the entire high 
school class. 

“What's the matter, Kyle?” she said mockingly. “Are you unsure of your 
sexuality? Did you know that the people who scream the loudest turn out to be 
gay themselves?” 

The other students in the class, who had been subjected to homosexual 
indoctrination for years, laughed at him. 

A few weeks later, in the middle of a discussion on genealogy, the teacher 
again digressed into the subject of homosexual behavior. Kyle asked again what 
homosexuality had to do with the subject. 

The teacher again questioned his sexuality and implied that he might be 
covering up the fact that he was a homosexual. Kyle stood up and denied the 
accusation, stating that he had a girlfriend. 

The class snickered at him. One classmate went as far to suggest that the 
girlfriend was a cover-up and that Kyle was a closet homosexual. 



This is war, so plan accordingly. 
—Homosexual activist Chuck Jones 



Devastated and humiliated, Kyle's grades dropped from a 3.70 grade point 
average to 2.10 in the months following the incident. 

That story is only one of numerous examples of how the homosexual 
agenda is being pushed in public schools and how those who don't toe the line 



39 



are being humiliated and punished. 

Every fall, millions of parents drop their children off at taxpayerfunded 
public schools, assuming that their children's education will provide what they 
need to be successful in life: strong academics, civility, and responsibility. 

Unfortunately, many of these same parents have little or no idea of what is 
happening to their children once they pass through the classroom door. Instead 
of learning the three Rs or how to be good citizens like many of us were taught, 
they are learning how to reject the common values that many of their parents 
have tried hard to instill in them, the values that built America. Sadly, many of 
these parents refuse to believe that this is happening, even when you produce 
evidence of how the radical homosexual activists are targeting children in 
public schools to accept, affirm, and be recruited into homosexual behavior. 

On a daily basis, all across America (but more prevalent in some areas of 
the country than others), children as young as kindergarten are being told that 
their parents are “stupid” or “bigots” or “intolerant” if they do not accept and 
embrace homosexual behavior as normal, or even something to be celebrated. 
In some classes, children are even recruited to promote gay pride marches and 
events. 

For young children, the open promotion of homosexual behavior in the 
media and the classroom has led to preteen children announcing to their 
parents that they are homosexual. Why? Because they are taught that if you are 
a girl who doesn't like boys, you are a lesbian, and if you are a boy who doesn't 
like girls, you are a homosexual. Yet, for most eight -year-olds, members of the 
opposite sex have “cooties” or similar perceived afflictions. This is the time 
when children bond and form their identity as members of their own sex, and it 
is just a natural part of childhood. To introduce homosexual behavior at this 
stage of development is only confusing for children. 

Finally, once they reach their teenage years, sexually confused teenagers 
are turned over to homosexual counselors who assist them in determining how 
they can come out to their families and friends. 

Homosexual activists know that the best time to reach children is during 
the earliest, most impressionable ages. Christian researcher George Bama has 
documented that the chance for an individual to make a personal decision to 
believe in Christ greatly diminishes after the age of fourteen. Just as children 
are more receptive to the gospel and religious instruction at an early age, they 
are also more susceptible to homosexual indoctrination. Is it any wonder why 
homosexual activists and their allies have tried so hard to keep the gospel out of 
and get homosexual indoctrination into the public schools? 

In their private meetings, homosexual activists boldly proclaim their goal to 
get children to reject their parents’ beliefs. At a 1999 Gay, Lesbian, Straight, 
Educational Network (GLSEN) conference in Atlanta, the following comments 
were made: “The fear of the religious right is that the schools of today are the 
governments of tomorrow. And you know what, they're right” and “If we do 
our jobs right, we're going to raise a generation of kids who don't believe the 



40 



claims of the religious right.” 

The Homosexual Activists’ Willing Partner 

A more than willing partner with the homosexual activists has been the 
National Education Association (NEA). While the NEA has been promoting the 
homosexual agenda for years, Sits most blatant attempt was at its 2001 annual 
convention in Los Angeles. At that convention the NEA considered a resolution 
to implement promotion of full-scale indoctrination of children to accept and 
affirm homosexual behavior. The resolution read as follows: 

BThe NEA has passed several resolutions dealing with the promotion of the 
homosexual agenda. They are available for review at 
http://www.nea.org/resolutions.html. Past resolutions include funds to 
“alleviate sexual orientation discrimination,” support for “Gay and Lesbian 
History Month,” and the inclusion of sexual orientation into sex education 
programs. 

The National Education Association recognizes the complex and 
diverse needs of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and questioning 
students; and gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender families and their 
children require the development of programs to promote a safe and 
inclusive environment: 

1. Development of curriculum and instructional materials and programs 
designed to meet the needs of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender 
students. 

2. Involvement of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender characters in 
developing educational material used in classroom instructions. 

3. Dissemination of programs that support gay, lesbian, bisexual, 
transgender, and questioning students and address the high dropout 
rate, suicide rate, and health risk behaviors. 

4. Recognition of the importance of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and 
transgender education employees as role models. 

5. Accurate portrayal of the roles and contributions of gay, lesbian, 
bisexual, and transgender education employees as role models. 

6. Dissemination of programs and information that include the 
contributions, heritage, culture, and history of gay, lesbian, bisexual, 
and transgender people. 

7. Coordination with gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender organizations 
and concerned agencies that promote the contributions, heritage, 
history, health, and care of gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender 
people. 

This resolution was loaded with land mines for people who oppose 
homosexual behavior and could have dire consequences for an entire generation 
of children. After pro-family groups, such as Focus on the Family, became 
aware of what the NEA was attempting to do, they blew the whistle, and a 
public backlash occurred. As a result, the NEA “tabled” the resolution and sent 
it to a committee for “study.” This means the organization will quietly 



41 



implement it without member approval. In fact, that is exactly what the NEA is 
doing, and similar resolutions are showing up as official NEA policy in school 
districts nationwide. 

Former NEA president Bob Chase openly admits to this strategy, stating, 
“Let me make it clear... in no way is the NEA backing down from the important 
issues raised by this resolution. ...Some critics want the public schools to be an 
agent of moral doctrine, condemning children and adults when they are not in 
accord with Biblical precepts. ’j|' Interestingly, Chase is on the board of directors 
for the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educational Network (GLSEN). 

Chase went on to work for GLSEN, the leading pro-homosexual advocacy 
group in the public schools. 

Think about that statement for a second. The NEA is condemning parents 
who object to homosexual behavior and believe that it should not be taught in 
public schools, accusing them of forcing their “moral doctrine” on children. And 
yet, groups such as the NEA, GLSEN, P-FLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians 
and Gays) and other pro-homosexual groups are trying to do just that. They are 
trying to push a doctrine of homosexual behavior on young children while 
condemning and ridiculing those, including parents, who hold to biblical 
principles and to undermine the beliefs they are trying to instill in their 
children. 

The NEA helped to publish a booklet, along with the American Academy of 
Pediatrics (which subsequently endorsed homosexual adoption), the American 
Medical Association, and the American School Health Association, among 
others, titled Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth This booklet, 
which was written to “combat the religious right,” effectively calls for the 
censoring of free speech rights of teachers and counselors who might be 
inclined to share the biblical perspective on homosexual behavior. It also calls 
for the wholehearted encouragement for schoolchildren to experiment with 
homosexual behavior. Consider this excerpt: 

Sexual orientation is one component of a person's identity, which is 
made up of many other components, such as culture, ethnicity, gender, or 
personality traits. ...Someone does not have to be exclusively homosexual or 
heterosexual, but can feel varying degrees of attraction for both 
genders.... Many deeply religious people and a number of religious 
organizations are supportive and accepting of gay, lesbian, bisexual 
people.... A guidance counselor in a public school may not attempt to persuade a 
gay, lesbian, or bisexual student of the religious belief that homosexuality is a 
sin, or otherwise seek to impose a negative religious view on being gay, lesbian, 
or bisexual on the student.... School officials should be deeply concerned 
about the validity and bias of materials or presentations that promote a 
change to a person's sexual orientation as a “cure” or suggest that being 
gay, lesbian, or bisexual is unhealthy, [emphasis added] 

Therefore, according to the NEA, GLSEN, and other organizations, 
Christians and other people of faith — and perhaps even experts on public health 
issues who may be teachers or counselors in the public schools — will not only 



42 



be unable to share their religious views about homosexual behavior, they won't 
be able to even mention individuals, such as John Paulk, who have overcome 
homosexual behavior. If this doctrine is imposed, more religious freedom of 
those teachers, counselors, and their students will be taken away. Tragically, 
m illi ons of sexually confused children will be told they have no other choice 
but to accept the fact that they are homosexual. 

“Questioning” Youth 

Anyone who has ever lived through the teenage years knows that it is a 
time of a great deal of sexual confusion as bodies change and hormones rage. 
Many early adolescents go through this state of confusion regarding gender 
attraction and attachment. Almost all of them emerge as healthy heterosexual 
adults. The phrase “questioning students” specifically targets these sexually 
confused early teens, who, with the assistance of public funding, will be 
encouraged to pursue homosexual behavior. 

Sadly, this is not a relatively new phenomenon. This has been happening 
for years, while millions of parents, including many Christian parents, have been 
blissfully ignorant about how radical homosexual activists are targeting their 
children in the public schools. 

In 1993, Newsweek magazine ran an article titled “Tune In, Come Out.” In 
the piece, writer David Gelman chronicled the sexual confusion of adolescents 
and how they were being encouraged to engage in homosexual behavior. He 
wrote, “At high schools around the country, multiculturalism has begun to 
embrace multisexualism...more students seem to be coming out, and they're 
coming out younger.” 

Gelman continued: 

Some high schoolers are coming out homosexual, some bisexual. 
Others are admittedly confused [emphasis added]. “It's very hard to figure 
out what you are in the core of your belly,” says one Boston teenager who 
thought she was a lesbian until she found herself enjoying a relationship 
with a man. Teens’ eagerness to experiment made bisexuality almost “cool” 
in some schools. “From where I sit, it's definitely more chic,” says George 
Hohagen, 20, a Midwestern market researcher not long out of high school 
himself. “It's trendy even to ask, ‘Do you think I am?’” At meetings of 
Boston Area Gay and Lesbian Youth, support group leader Troix 
Bettencourt, 19, a public health intern, has seen an increase in teenagers 
who identify themselves as bisexual. They don't want to be penned into 
one type of behavior, he says. “It [saying you're bisexual] just says that 
you're not yet defined and gives you some freedom.” It's also easier. “After 
all, you've still got the straight part,” says 18-yearold Jessica Byers. ..who 
came out as a lesbian. 

These quotes sadly illustrate what happens when teenagers are encouraged 
to question their sexuality and experiment. The teenage years are often a time 
of testing limits and experimenting with forbidden fruit. The lure of illegal 
drugs, alcohol, and pornography are extremely strong during these years. 



43 



Caitlyn Ryan, a researcher at San Francisco State University, added, “Now 
that community resources are in place and public acceptance [of homosexual 
behavior] has increased, it's more feasible for adolescents to come out during 
adolescence. What you're getting in the LGBT community is the power of youth. 
It's their expression and exuberance and energy and also their contribution to 
the culture.” 

This phenomenon was documented by Laura Sessions Stepp in the January 
4, 2004, edition of the Washington Post: 

Move over Ellen DeGeneres, and make way for the younger girls. Way 
younger, actually, and way different from what most people think of as 
lesbians. ...You can see them in the hallways of high schools like South 
Lakes in Reston, Magruder in Rockville, or Coolidge in the District. In 2002 
at Coolidge, a teacher got so fed up with girls nuzzling each other in class 
and other public places that he threatened to send any he saw to the 
principal's office. ...A group of girls at a private school in Northwest 
Washington charge boys $10 to watch the girls make out in front of them. 



So are these girls bisexual? Perhaps. But they prefer descriptions like 
“gayish,” questioning, even “queer” — an umbrella description so 
broad.. .that it encompasses straights as well as gays.. ..“I like women only 
right now,” says Cary Trainer.. .a self -defined lesbian since high school, “But 
who knows where I'll be in 25 years?” 

[David] Shapiro is head of the Edmund Burke School.. .in Northwest 
Washington. In 2002, Burke held a “diversity day” assembly in which 
students and teachers stood together in a circle. An adult leader took the 
group through various exercises, and in one of those, participants were 
asked to move inside the circle if they defined themselves as gay or lesbian. 

One female teacher stepped forward, but no students did. 

Then the leader called for those who thought of themselves as bisexual 
— the broadest label offered. Out of the approximately 60 pupils in the 
group, 15 obliged; 11 girls and four boys. Shapiro said he was “astounded” 
at the number of kids who stepped into the bisexual group. As he thought 
about it, he concluded that “kids today know the difference between 
behavior and orientation. They say, ‘I may be behaving in this certain way, 
but I'll make up my own mind about who I am in my own time.’” 

“Most of these girls aren't gay” [says one student]... “They' re just doing 
it because their friends are doing it.” 

Dr. Frances Scott, a professor of childhood development at Chicago's 
Erikson Institute, stated that teens are liable to experiment because they are still 
trying to figure out who they are. This problem is particularly pronounced for 
children who come from broken homes and do not have strong relationships 
with both parents. She said, “Teenagers are at that point in life where so many 
aspects of their identity are coming together. They're figuring out issues of 
sexual identity, occupational identity, and role identity. They're really asking the 



44 



question, ‘Who am I?’” This is one of the main reasons why homosexual 
activists have made a concerted effort to get into middle schools and high 
schools — they know that teenagers are likely to be receptive to their message as 
they try to figure out who they are. 

Sadly, too many lives have been destroyed by bad decisions made during 
the teenage years that had dire consequences for an individual's future. Many 
adults regret decisions they made during those years. And now, homosexual 
behavior has been added to the mix as well. 

So what is the bottom line? According to the NEA and its allies, children 
must be taught that sexual orientation is fluid (which is an interesting 
contradiction since homosexual activists are intent on proving a genetic link to 
their behavior), that only “intolerant religions” do not affirm homosexual 
behavior, and that once you are entrapped in homosexual behavior, there is no 
escape. No dissenting views are permitted. Thus, the gospel is silenced, parental 
values are undermined, and an impressionable child is doomed to engage in 
behavior that will often result in his or her eventual selfdestruction. 

Targeting the Children 

And how does this all play out in public schools? In some areas of the 
country where homosexual activists have had free rein for years, the 
indoctrination of children starts as early as kindergarten. At a Massachusetts 
GLSEN conference, there was a specific workshop on how to “incorporate gay, 
lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues into the early elementary years.” On 
the GLSEN Web site, there are elementary school lesson plans featuring the 
themes “What Is Boy/Girl?” and “Freedom to Marry?” along with books with 
titles such as “Queering Elementary Education.” 

In the article “Gay-Ed for Tots,” Debra Saunders chronicled the full 
implementation of homosexual indoctrination in the San Francisco Unified 
School District: 

The San Francisco Unified School District has a lesson plan for 
teaching kindergartners and first-graders about homosexuality. It is called 
“My Family,” and is disseminated through the district's Support Services for 
Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Youth Department.. ..The lesson includes 
definitions that are politically correct — and downright confusing to adults, 
never mind kids. Homosexuals are “people of the same sex who have 
feelings for one another in a romantic way.” A family is a “unit of two or 
more persons, related either by birth or by choice, who may or may not live 
together, who try to meet each other's needs and share common goals and 
interests. ’’...The lesson includes class exercises designed to reinforce the 
notion that all families should be validated. ..presumably including families 
with no dads, three dads, or a 14-yearold mom.... 

This year, the Buena Vista School District went way beyond “My 
Family.” As it had in past years, the school invited gay parents into the 
classroom to talk to elementary students. In a first-grade class, a gay man 
read to the children the district-approved book, “Gloria Goes to Gay Pride.” 



45 



But this year, students also worked on a rainbow banner for the gay pride 
parade, and they did so during class time. As a school missive explained, 
kindergartners “designed” the red stripe, first-graders the “yellow,” and so 
on up to fifth grade. The rainbow banner, the message boasted, “reflects 
the creativity, love, and appreciation for diversity as expressed by the 
children of Buena Vista. ” 

In such an emboldened climate as the San Francisco Bay Area, homosexual 
activists make no bones about telling Christians and others who object to 
homosexual behavior to “get lost.” For example, when asked about those 
parents who might have moral objections to the promotion of homosexual 
behavior in San Francisco schools, Lynn Lavin of the Gay-Lesbian Parents Group 
at Buena Vista school flippantly said, “If there are people who don't feel 
comfortable with [pro-homosexual] policies, they shouldn't be in public 
schools.” 

In her conclusion to the article, Saunders tied the indoctrination of 
schoolchildren to the argument used by the secular left that religion or equal 
access for Bible study or prayer groups should not be allowed in public schools 
because children are “easily persuaded.” Saunders wrote, “Those who support 
pressing young children into making a gay banner have insisted that there is 
nothing political about it or the city's gay pride parade. Instead, they have 
equated the gay pride parade with Martin Luther King Day. That Buena Vista's 
proselytizing, forced on kids who aren't old enough to think critically, might be 
the equivalent of public school prayer, doesn't compute with them.” 

As we mentioned before in our discussion of George Bama's findings on 
children and faith, it is quite obvious that homosexual activists and their allies 
have no problem with the indoctrination of children. It is a child's exposure to 
traditional religious teachings on issues of sexuality and marriage that gets in 
the way of their objectives. It is that, according to homosexual activists and 
their allies, that must be eliminated during a child's formative years. Therefore, 
while they might make the statement that parents who believe homosexual 
behavior is wrong have no place in the public schools, it frustrates them to no 
end when parents come to that realization and either place their children in 
private schools or home school them. Thus, according to NEA resolutions, they 
want control over the curriculum parents and private schools teach. Their fear 
of not being able to get to these children is best summed up by a first-grade 
teacher in Madison, Wisconsin (another pro-homosexual hotbed): “If parents are 
allowed to have their children opt out of gay and lesbian units, what will 
happen when we teach about Dutch culture or African-American history? It 
scares me.” 

(In fact, homosexual activists in California have begun to come up with 
ways to force private schools to adopt pro-homosexual curriculum. In 
September 2001, former Governor Gray Davis signed a bill that forces private 
schools that wish to compete with public schools in interscholastic sports to 
have an anti-discrimination policy that includes sexual orientation.) 

If you're thinking of moving your family north of the border to escape all of 



46 



this, don't. The situation is worse in Canada. At a recent convention, the 
Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario voted 50-1 in support of introducing 
pro-homosexual curriculum into elementary school classrooms. The motion, 
according to the Canadian Press, “allows the union to ‘encourage’ school boards 
to establish funding for schools, upon request, for ‘materials for student use 
which reflect lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender realities.’” 

GLSEN: The Gay, Lesbian, 
and Straight Educational Network 

One of the most vocal pro-homosexual groups is the Gay, Lesbian, and 
Straight Educational Network. Its efforts to indoctrinate children are relentless. 
On April 10, 2002, GLSEN staged a Day of Silence in public schools 
nationwide. Students were encouraged to remain silent throughout the day 
and not respond to their teachers or school administrators. If asked to speak, 
the students were told to hand their teachers a card that read: “Please 
understand my reasons for not speaking today. I am participating in the Day of 
Silence, a national youth movement protesting the silence faced by lesbian, gay, 
bisexual, and transgender people and their allies. My deliberate silence echoes 
that silence, which is caused by harassment, prejudice, and discrimination. I 
believe that ending that silence is the first step toward fighting these injustices. 
Think about the voices you are not hearing today. What are you going to do to 
end the silence?” 

GLSEN called on students nationwide to participate in “Transgender 
Remembrance Day” on November 20, 2002. 

Organizers of the event told children that they should “brainstorm” a list of 
people “who are likely to stand in your way.” Those people included teachers, 
counselors, and administrators who have “denied you their support in the past, 
or who've expressed bias against (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered) 
people.” It is also suggested that the list include other children, school board 
members, people in the community, and relatives “who have shown 
intolerance” of homosexuality. The organizing manual notes that “people who 
oppose you on your issue are known as, you guessed it, your opponents. 

In 2003, U.S. Congressman Eliot Engel (D-NY) introduced a resolution calling 
on Congress to “recognize the efforts of students nationwide who will be 
organizing and participating in the Day of Silence.” GLSEN set its 2003 “Day of 
Silence” for April 9, 2003. See “Day of Silence in Congressional Spotlight Thanks 
to Rep. Eliot Engel,” GLSEN Press Release, March 11, 2003. 

So, GLSEN is telling little children that their relatives are the “enemy” if 
they oppose homosexual behavior. Our question (and we are afraid of the 
answer): Does “relatives” include Mom and Dad? Indeed, we will see that this is 
exactly what GLSEN means. It does mean Mom and Dad. 

It was not just Catholics and evangelical, conservative Christians who were 
outraged by GLSEN's Day of Silence. Rabbi David Eidensohn of the National 
Non-Sectarian Council of Pro-Family Activists said, “This is an assault on our 
school system by terrorists. The financial damage due to lost school time 



47 



throughout the country will be enormous. We cannot, however, talk about 
money alone. The disruption of a school atmosphere, especially towards the 
end of the year, when discipline in schools is a challenge, could kill a year of 
learning for many students. Precisely when students should be concentrating on 
finals, they are told by GLSEN homosexual activists to refuse to speak in class 
and to disrupt school with activism. Students who should be learning to get 
along with others are making a ‘hit list’ of teachers and students who are 
Biblical or who refuse the homosexual agenda.” 

However, to radical homosexual activists, the pushing of their agenda 
trumps academics. Keith Jennings, the executive director of GLSEN, told a 
church audience in New York City on March 20, 2000, about GLSEN's plan to 
deal with those who have biblical objections to homosexual behavior: “Twenty 
percent of people are hard-core fair-minded [pro-homosexual] people. Twenty 
percent are hard-core [anti-homosexual] bigots. We need to ignore the hardcore 
bigots, get more of the hard-core fair-minded people to speak up, and we'll pull 
that 60 percent [of people in the middle]... over to our side. That's really what I 
think our strategy has to be. We have to quit being afraid of the religious 
right.. ..I'm trying to find a way to say this. I'm trying not to say, ‘[Expletive 
deleted] ‘em,’ which is what I want to say, because I don't care what they think! 
Drop dead!” 

Jennings also talked about GLSEN's strategy in a speech at a 1997 
conference: “I'd like five years from now for most Americans when they hear 
the word GLSEN to think, ‘Ooh, that's good for kids. ’...Sane people keep the 
world the same [expletive deleted] old way it is now. It's the [crazy] people 
who think, ‘No, I can envision a day when straight people say, “So what if you're 
promoting homosexuality?” or [when] straight kids say, “Hey, why don't you 
and your boyfriend come over before you go to the prom and try your tuxes on 
at my house.’”... If you believe that can happen, we can make it happen. The 
only thing that will stop us is our lack of faith that we can make it happen. That 
is our mission from this day forward.” 

GLSEN, at its conferences like the one that Jennings spoke at above, is very 
overt when it comes to its goal of indoctrinating even the youngest of 
schoolchildren. At a 1997 GLSEN regional conference. New York teacher and 
GLSEN activist Jaki Williams taught a workshop entitled “Inclusive 
Kindergartens.” Here is just a sample of what she said: “Children in the 
kindergarten age are ‘developing their superego. ’...That's when the saturation 
process needs to begin.. ..Five-year-olds are very interested in the big questions. 
They're very interested in sex, death, and love, and they ask those questions, 
and they talk about them. And we want to help them find the answers. ..on their 
level.” 

Williams added that she read to her class books such as Heather Has Two 
Mommies and One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dads, Blue Dads. 

At a 1999 conference, a retired lesbian gym teacher talked about how she 
discussed her sexuality with her kindergarten gym class. Peter LaBarbera, then 
with the Family Research Council and currently with Concerned Women for 
America, who witnessed her talk, filed the following report: 



48 



[She] explained that at her school she was “out” as a lesbian to the 
principal and to most of the teaching staff, and that it was important for 
her to be “authentic” about her sexual identity. According to [her], one day 
a student in her gym class asked if she had a husband. She said no, and 
then another student asked if she had a boyfriend. [She] said no, “As a 
matter of fact... I have a girlfriend.” After some of the children said, 
“Ohhhh!” as if shocked, they asked if she kissed her girlfriend. [She] said 
she did. 

[She] responded: “Some people think it's OK, and some people think 
it's not OK.”... 

Then the gym teacher asked one of the boys in her class, “Do you ever 
kiss your father goodnight?” He replied, “Yes.” [She] asked one of the girls, 
“Do you ever kiss your sister to show her that you love her?” “Yes,” the girl 
responded. [She] then used the analogy between those kisses and her 
lesbian kisses as she told the children, “Some people will tell you that you 
shouldn't love some people [but]. ..your heart tells you who to love.”... 

“This was a very teachable moment.. ..I was not in any way going to lie 
to my students,” [she said of her conversation with the kindergarten gym 
class]. “At the elementary school level, the teachable moments are the 
really critical ones.” 

GLSEN put out a student organizing manual titled “Make It Real,” to be 
used for the implementation of California's AB537, the California Student Safety 
and Violence Prevention Act of 2000, which does not obligate schools to inform 
parents about classroom instruction that conflicts with their religious or moral 
beliefs, nor allows parents to opt their children out of such instruction. Here are 
just a few excerpts from the manual: 

Imagine a school where two girls or two guys can hold hands, dance 
together, or even make out, and nobody notices. 

Ask your principal if he or she will respect students’ wishes not to 
notify parents.... Some parents force them to undergo “therapy” to “change” 
them.... Once they are educated about the risks as well as their legal 
obligations, many principals will understand and respect a student's legal 
right to keep complaints confidential from their parents. 

Here's how you can use testers in your school: train pairs of students 
to pretend to be couples.... Half of the couples should be same-sex couples, 
and half of the couples should be opposite-sex couples. Create a list of 
public displays of affection (holding hands, hugging, walking arm-in-arm, 
dancing together, kissing hello, or goodbye, making out) and be very clear 
about the limits at each level. Try to include a variety of places, so that the 
widest number of people might potentially react. Make sure you definitely 
list a place where a school administrator is likely to view the display of 
affection. 

Anyone with two or more parents or stepparents understands the time- 
honored strategy of carefully choosing which parent to ask which question. 



49 



If one parent is paranoid about your driving, ask the other if you can 

borrow the car. This is a basic form of ally building. 

From this manual, it is quite clear that GLSEN believes teenagers should 
conceal information from their parents and undermine parental authority by 
playing one parent off another. Parents, to GLSEN, are just something else to be 
manipulated to reach their goal of recruiting impressionable youth into 
homosexual behavior. 

Soon after the Massachusetts State Supreme Judicial Court decision finding 
a new “right” to same-sex “marriage,” GLSEN jumped at the opportunity to push 
their agenda even further in the public schools. Even before the decision was 
reached, GLSEN had prepared a curriculum guide that featured lesson plans that 
discussed the “historical parallels” to same-sex “marriage,” (equating the 
legitimate struggle for civil rights by black Americans to the effort for same-sex 
“marriage”), books about homosexual behavior, and asked students to 
“consider” what it would be like to be in a same-sex “wedding.” 

The curriculum also states, “When discussing this issue, help students to 
move past preoccupations with the ‘rightness’ or ‘wrongness’ of same-sex 
coupling or homosexuality in general. Place the debate over marriage within the 
context of human rights, thereby expanding the dialogue beyond the realm of 
morality.” As in other instances, GLSEN is undermining parental authority and 
coercing children to reject the beliefs of their parents. 

At a GLSEN conference for educators in Massachusetts, workshops such as 
“Ask the Transsexuals,” “Early Childhood Educators: How to Decide Whether to 
Come Out at Work or Not,” “The Struggles and Triumphs of Including 
Homosexuality in a Middle School Curriculum,” “From Lesbos to Stonewall: 
Incorporating Sexuality into a World History Curriculum,” and “Creating a Safe 
and Inclusive Sexuality in Elementary Schools” were held. The last workshop is 
described as providing the “rationale of integrating GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, 
and transgender] issues in the early elementary years.” 

It's Elementary? 

In addition to its conferences, GLSEN, working with lesbian activists and 
filmmakers Helen Cohen and Diana Chasnoff, has developed and promoted the 
video It's Elementary to train teachers and administrators on how to push the 
homosexual agenda in public schools. The video openly promotes homosexual 
behavior and ridicules and defames anyone who would object to it. One 
fifthgrade boy, who has obviously had years of homosexual indoctrination 
already, says in the video, “Some Christians believe that if you're gay, you'll go 
to hell, so they want to torture them and stuff.” There is no rebuttal. An 
eighth-grade girl defends the teaching of homosexual behavior, stating, “If kids 
are too young to be taught about homosexuality, then they are too young to be 
taught about heterosexuality... [If] children are reading Cinderella then they 
should read about a prince and a prince, or a princess and a princess.” 

The producers have now come out with a second video titled “That's a 
Family!” endorsed by actor Robin Williams, that is designed to teach first 



50 



graders through third graders about homosexual families. 

But perhaps the most alarming portion of the video involves a teacher 
lavishing praise on an essay written by an eight-year-old girl about her lesbian 
“parents.” The teacher encourages the little girl to read her essay to her entire 
class, and the girl states that those who believe what the Bible has to say about 
homosexual behavior are stupid. The teacher then announces at the end of the 
class that this essay has won an award! 

We don't know about you, but if we had characterized someone's sincere 
beliefs as stupid in an essay we had written during our school days, we probably 
would have been disciplined or at least forced to write the essay over again. But 
this is the perfect example of how children are being taught disdain for biblical 
values in our public schools. 

It May Be Happening in Your Child's School 

Here are just a few more quick examples of how the homosexual agenda is 
being pushed to elementary school children: 

• In Boulder, Colorado, a new curriculum has been proposed that would 
require students to “demonstrate” their acceptance of homosexual behavior. 
Students would have to show they can “provide peer support” for 
homosexual classmates and demonstrate they can “advocate for a school 
environment free of... homophobia.” Other standards require students to 
explain the health consequences of “heterosexism.” 

• A southern California prep academy hosted a forum entitled “A Queer State 
of the Union.” The school. Crossroads School for the Arts and Sciences, is 
attended by numerous children of Hollywood celebrities. The school has a 
“sexual orientation curriculum” that instructs kindergartners through 
fifthgraders about how “there are different kinds of families, which include 
families with two mommies and two daddies. The school also staged a play, 
“Everything Possible: A Gay Odyssey,” that featured two teenage boys 
kissing. Faculty member Adam Behrman said, “One thing I'm starting to 
notice in the last year or two. ..which is really, really cool, not just at 
Crossroads, but other places, that it's becoming more and more OK for 
people who are probably largely toward the straight end of the spectrum to 
really think about, ‘You know, maybe I'm bisexual.. .maybe I don't have to 
limit myself, what I am shutting myself off to?’” Behrman went on to add 
that 13- and 14-year-olds are “exploring bisexuality.” 

• In Ithaca, New York, school officials are requiring that first and second 
graders be graded on tolerance. The kids will receive grades based on how 
well “they respect others of varying cultures, genders, experiences, and 
abilities.” The grade will appear on their report cards under “Lifelong 
Learning Skills,” before social studies, science, writing, and reading. Thus, 
how a child views homosexual behavior is more important than the 
fundamentals he or she will need to succeed in life. 

• In Provincetown, Massachusetts, the school board voted to begin teaching 
pre-schoolers about homosexual behavior and backed affirmative action for 



51 



“sexual minorities.” “We are on a trailblazing path,” said Susan Fleming, 
superintendent of Provincetown schools. 

• In St. Louis, Missouri, Debra Loveless requested her right to exempt her 
daughter from a GLSEN seminar at her daughter's public school. Her request 
was granted, but she also wanted to see what was being presented at the 
seminar. When she arrived, an armed security guard told her that school 
officials wanted her to leave the school grounds. An ADF ally has come to 
the defense of her right to view what is being taught at the seminar, stating 
that school cannot prohibit parents from viewing the content of school 
seminars, whether or not their child is attending. 

• In Ann Arbor, Michigan, a local high school held a so-called Diversity Week 
that included student speeches on the topics of race, religion, and 
homosexuality at an all-school assembly. When one student wished to give a 
talk on the biblical position with regard to homosexual behavior, school 
officials censored her speech, claiming that her religious view toward 
homosexual behavior was “negative” and would “water down” the “positive” 
religious message they wanted to convey. That “positive” message was that 
homosexual behavior and religion are compatible and that homosexual 
behavior is not sinful. School officials also created written guidelines that 
prohibited “targeting” someone's “sexual orientation.” 

When a religious view is to be presented in the public schools, it is a liberal 
version that affirms homosexual behavior (however, if a conservative view 
were being presented, you can be assured that the squawk of “separation of 
church and state” would be loud and clear). One of the Alliance Defense Fund's 
allied attorneys testified to an example of this occurring in Los Angeles public 
schools: “We are arguing the case of Park v. Los Angeles Unified School District 
This is a class action suit challenging the school district's policy of inviting 
pastors into the schools to teach from the Bible. The pastors invited for 
assemblies during Gay and Lesbian Pride Month every June preach from the 
Bible that God approves of homosexuality. [Note: Los Angeles city schools have 
turned an entire month over to the promotion of the homosexual agenda.] They 
cite various Scripture verses supporting their sermons and distribute booklets 
citing Bible verses with the conclusion that homosexual behavior is not a sin. 
Additional materials posted for display to the students (elementary through high 
school) include full frontal and female nudity... explicit descriptions of sexual 
acts between homosexuals and claims that Abraham Lincoln and King David 
were homosexuals.” 

We will discuss this perspective further in chapter 6. 

Harking back to the NEA brochure “Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation 
and Youth,” it is not the promotion of a religious viewpoint on homosexual 
behavior that is offensive to the NEA and homosexual activists. It is the 
promotion of the wrong viewpoint that does not affirm homosexual behavior 
that is problematic for the NEA. Thus, the NEA promotes the religious freedom 
of those who affirm homosexual behavior, but it advocates censoring the 
religious freedom for those who would disagree. One viewpoint is 
“enlightened,” the other, in the words of the fourth-grade girl in It's Elementary, 



52 



is “stupid. 



Where the Homosexual Activists Are Strongest 

We could go on and on with numerous other examples of how homosexual 
behavior is being promoted in elementary schools, but it is time to turn our 
focus to middle schools and high schools, where the indoctrination by radical 
homosexual activists is even more intense. 

While homosexual activists have made inroads in practically every state of 
the country, they have made the most progress in states such as Massachusetts 
and California, where the left-leaning political environment, coupled with large 
homosexual population centers and the lack of traditional religious influences, 
has led to public schools that seemingly do little else but teach about 
homosexual behavior. 

Massachusetts has thrown open the school doors to sexual activists and 
then has locked the doors to keep parents out. They have let homosexual 
activists have carte blanche to advance their agenda. Teachers and counselors 
have received special state-funded training for dealing with gay and lesbian 
students, school libraries are stocked with books and films on homosexual 
issues, and support groups for sexually confused adolescents are conducted to 
convince them they are homosexual. 

For example, in Framingham, Massachusetts, students were forced to 
answer a questionnaire that openly challenged the validity of their 
heterosexuality. Here are some of the questions they were asked: 

1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality? 

2. When did you first decide you were heterosexual? 

3. Is it possible heterosexuality is a phase you will grow out of? [Of course, 
the flip side of this question is not asked: Is it possible that homosexuality 
is a phase you will grow out of?] 

4. Is it possible you are heterosexual because you fear the same sex? 

5. If you have never slept with anyone of the same sex, how do you know you 
wouldn't prefer it? 

6. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexuality? How did they react? 

7. Why are heterosexuals so blatant, always making a spectacle of their 
heterosexuality? Why can't they just be who they are and not flaunt their 
sexuality by kissing in public, wearing wedding rings, etc.? 

Notice how heterosexuality is portrayed as the abnormal behavior? If you 
substituted the words homosexuality and opposite sex into many of the questions, 
there would be a howl of protests from radical homosexual activists and their 
allies. 

This questionnaire is just the beginning.. .it gets worse. 

• In Newton, Massachusetts, the homosexual rainbow flag is flown proudly at 
many schools. Many of the same schools have chosen to ignore the 



53 



Massachusetts law that the American flag be displayed on school grounds. 

In Silver Lake, Massachusetts, a freshman health text says: “Testing your 
ability to function sexually and give pleasure to another person may be less 
threatening in your early teens with people of your own s ex.... You may come 
to the conclusion that growing up means rejecting the values of your parents” 
[emphasis added]. This statement blatantly acknowledges the agenda of 
the radical homosexual activists: convince early teenagers to experiment 
with homosexual behavior and to reject the values of their parents. The 
students who received this text were told that they could not take it home. 

In another instance, a parent removed a child after discovering the content 
of a four-day “sexual harassment” program dealt with homosexual behavior 
(it replaced algebra). The teacher told the student to return, stating: “Your 
parents don't have to know.” 




And what happens when children start to reject their parents’ beliefs after 
being indoctrinated in the public schools? After a week of mandatory 
Homophobia Week assemblies in Beverly, Massachusetts, a fourteen-year-old 
girl told her father that he was a homophobe. 

In their efforts to keep parents out of the public schools, homosexual and 
safe-sex advocates are doing everything they can to lock kids in. In Chelmsford, 
Massachusetts, high schoolers attended a mandatory assembly called “Hot, 
Safer, and Sexy” held by AIDS “educator” Suzi Landolphi. Parents were not 
notified about this assembly that was filled with graphic sexual information. 

Landolphi started the assembly by telling the students, “What we're going 
to do is to have a group sexual experience here today. How's that? Is that good? 
With audience participation!” Cheryl Wetzstein, in the Washington Times, 
described the rest of Landolphi's performance: 

She giggled and she strutted. They laughed and they cheered — 
especially when Dr. David Evans [of the American Medical Student 
Association] blew the condom on his head into King Kong proportions. ... 

The students [who filed the lawsuit]... were offended when she 
“simulated masturbation,” used lewd and lascivious language for body 
parts and excretory functions, and closely inspected a male student's 
“butt,” according to the court papers. ...For example. Miss Landolphi asked 
a student to participate in a demonstration, and, holding a condom on one 
hand, she handed another condom to him. She licked the condom and 
asked him to do the same. Then, saying, “I don't want to waste this 
condom,” she invited a teen-age girl to come down. Miss Landolphi told the 
boy to kneel and instructed the girl to take the condom and place it over 
the boy's head. 

The performers continued to attack Christianity stating: "... you are gay — 
that is your sexual orientation, and you happen to be proud of it. My name is 
not God. I was never given the right to judge another human being.... And I'll be 
[profanity] if I'll judge anyone by their... gender, their religion or their sexual 
orientation.” 



54 



One teenage girl, who had attended the session, stated, “This was definitely 
the best assembly in four years. She wasn't lecturing us like a parent. She was 
telling us something we need to hear... .Parents don't realize that the message 
she was getting across is important.” 

The Alliance Defense Fund helped two former Chelmsford High School 
students in an appeal of their unsuccessful challenge to the school district over 
the performance. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court eventually rejected an 
appeal from the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which had 
ruled against the students. 

At a special session for teenagers at a Massachusetts GLSEN conference, 
two officials from the state Department of Education and an AIDS educator 
taught a seminar titled “What They Didn't Teach You about Queer Sex and 
Sexuality in Health Class.” The three adults took questions from the audience. 
When one of the students inquired about “fisting” (a practice in which a person 
inserts his or her hand and forearm into the rectum of a partner), the AIDS 
educator demonstrated to the teens the proper hand position for the act. One of 
the Department of Education officials chimed in, stating that fisting was “an 
experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be close and 
intimate with.” The AIDS educator then urged the teens to consult their 
“really hip” Gay/Straight Alliance adviser at school for hints on how to “come 
on to a potential sex partner.” While one of the Department of Education 
employees was fired for the presentation, she was quietly rehired later after a 
decision in her favor by an arbitrator — with back pay dating to May 2000. 

This is just the tip of the iceberg in regards to the graphic sexual 
information that was shared with the teen audience. The conference was 
sponsored by the state of Massachusetts and was reportedly underwritten by 
corporate donations from American Airlines, Levi Strauss, and Eastman Kodak. 

What comes through loud and clear in Massachusetts and in California is 
the wholesale encouragement for children to reject their parents’ and America's 
common values. No dissent to the homosexual agenda is allowed, or if it is, it is 
severely limited and pushed to the fringes. 

Consider this account from an attorney of what happened at Santa Rosa 
High School in Santa Rosa, California (where Craig graduated from high school 
more than two decades ago). 

Santa Rosa High School is one place where this [homosexual 
education] agenda has been fully implemented. I was privileged to be one 
of a panel of experts opposed to the “gay” agenda who had been allowed to 
make one 50 minute presentation during the first day of Diversity Week at 
school. 

The principal, Mr. Waxman, considers this single slot sufficient to 
provide “balance” in a weeklong program that included more than 20 hours 
of pro-homosexual indoctrination of students. The requirement of balance 
had been imposed on the school by the school board following a parental 
revolt the prior year, when a single “Day of Diversity” at another high 



55 



school in the district failed to include opponents of the homosexual 
political agenda. 

What I learned during the course of that day [the first day of Diversity 
Week at Santa Rosa High School] was astonishing, even to a veteran pro- 
family leader like myself. We [concerned parents and the attorney] 
discovered a comprehensive program for promoting homosexuality to the 
student population, complete with a taxpayer-funded staff facilitator and 
the approval of the administration. 

The paid facilitator is a veteran “gay” activist named Jim Foster... 
[who] runs an off-campus community center called “Positive Images” 
where “gay” teens can mingle with older homosexuals. ...This week's 
schedule included at least four sessions on “homophobia,” and many 
additional hours devoted to gender issues, transsexualism, and other topics 
dear to the “gay” movement.. ..I took the opportunity to sit in on a “Panel 
on Homophobia.” It was worse than I expected. Seven or eight people sat 
in rows or tables at the head of the room and addressed a standing-room 
only crowd of their peers. The young activists took turns giving personal 
testimonies about how joining the “gay” movement has changed their lives 
from misery to bliss. Each one began by reciting his or her credentials as a 
victim of “homophobia,” then explained how he or she had “come out” as 
“gay,” lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered. Each finished by reciting how 
much he or she now felt loved and accepted in the “gay” movement. 
Frankly, the only comparable experience I have ever had to this has been in 
the church settings where people have testified as to how Christ changed 
their lives. Only here, the “savior” was identified as the “gay” community.... 

I was confronted by a teenage girl who announced that she was head 
of the “Gay-Straight Alliance” club on campus. Her overt purpose in 
addressing me was to gloat that the new club had over 40 members and 
was making huge strides in converting students to the “gay” cause. She 
searched my eyes as she told me and was visibly pleased that I was pained 
by the news. As she walked away, one of her companions said aloud, “I 
hope he dies.” Later, as I was leaving the campus, one of the parents called 
to me from across the parking lot and gestured over to a car parked near 
the office. As I approached, I saw that its license plates read “Pos Imag.” It 
was Jim Foster's car. “Look at the seat,” said the parent. There, as if placed 
to be noticed by passersby was a black and white poster. It was a picture of 
young boys around the age of puberty sitting together on some front porch 
steps. In big block letters at the bottom of the page read the message, 
“INCITE QUEERNESS.” 

Despite ever-present denials by homosexual activists, the link to child sex 
(adults promoting sex with young boys) and homosexual behavior is alarming. 
At a 2002 Columbia University conference (sponsored by the New York City 
Department of Health) for “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Youth,” one 
of the workshops was titled “Adult/Teen Sex.” This seminar was described as 
follows: “This workshop is a discussion that will address adultteen relationships 
and the controversies surrounding the issue. Some questions that the workshop 
will attempt to answer: Why are teens attracted to older adults? Why are older 



56 



adults attracted to teens? What does the law say? What are some gray areas in 
adultteen relationships?” 

We will read in a subsequent chapter about pedophilia and how it is now 
being promoted in the academic world as just another alternative lifestyle that 
is in some ways “beneficial” to children. In addition, we will look at the issue of 
adult/teen sex in the context of the controversies surrounding the Catholic 
Church and the Boy Scouts of America. This is the dangerous path that many 
radical homosexual activists are taking us, and our children, on. 

In Visalia, California, not exactly an urban center like San Francisco or Los 
Angeles, the school district agreed to implement anti-harassment programs 
conducted by GLSEN and aimed at all students and staff, after being sued by the 
ACLU. The settlement called for mandatory training for all school staff and high 
school students. The student training was described as being “peer to peer,” 
meaning students who do not agree with homosexual behavior will be pressured 
by their fellow classmates to comply. In addition, the district will name 
“compliance coordinators” to “help parents, students and teachers with 
incidents of discrimination.” Big Brother is alive and well in Visalia, California, 
and he is watching you and your kids. 

The Influence Is Pervasive 

The indoctrination that takes place in our public schools has definitely had 
an effect in shaping teens’ attitudes toward homosexual behavior. In 2001, 
Zogby International released a poll that found that 85 percent of high school 
seniors thought homosexual men and lesbians should be accepted by society; 
68 percent said homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt children; 88 
percent supported so-called hate-crimes legislation, which in many of its forms 
has nothing to do with “hate” at all; and two-thirds thought same-sex marriage 
should be allowed. Even 80 percent of evangelical Christian students supported 
hate-crimes legislation, which in its many proposed forms, will be used to 
silence religious speech about homosexual behavior. The researchers also 
were surprised that some of the most liberal views on homosexual behavior 
came from Catholic students. For instance, 80 percent of Catholic students 
supported homosexual marriage, despite the Roman Catholic Church's 
unequivocal position in opposition. 

We will discuss the catechism of the Catholic Church and its stance on 
homosexual behavior in chapter 6. 

As if indoctrinating children isn't enough, radical homosexual activists are 
busy re-writing history, with little or no evidence, to support the assertions that 
they pass along as absolute truth to impressionable schoolchildren to convince 
them that scores of significant people, including biblical figures such as King 
David and the apostle Paul were homosexual. With the NEA resolution on 
homosexual behavior being quietly implemented into school curricula 
nationwide, more and more children will be taught these distortions of biblical 
and world history. 

For example, some activists have declared that Leonardo da Vinci was 



57 



homosexual. In addition, they have also added Eleanor Roosevelt, Alexander 
Hamilton, and even Abraham Lincoln to their list. In Lincoln's case, they 
claim that he shared a room with a man for a two-year period, thus that 
automatically made him homosexual. If that is the case, every college 
freshman who has shared a dorm room or an apartment with someone of the 
same sex is homosexual as well! Yet such nonsense goes unquestioned. In fact, 
as mentioned earlier, many Los Angeles city schools devote an entire month of 
the school year to teaching gay history, which includes items such as this. 

While children are being told that Abraham Lincoln is homosexual, they are 
not learning true American history. A recent poll of American high school 
students found that 22 percent believed that we fought the Revolutionary War 
against France, 13 percent said that we battled England in the Civil War, 15 
percent had no idea of what happened on July 4, 1776, and 10 percent did not 
know that George Washington was the first president under the 
Constitution. Educators are more concerned about Honest Abe's sexual 
orientation than they are of the significance of the Civil War. 

The National Park Service produced a video (now under review after public 
outcry) for the Lincoln Memorial that states that Lincoln would have supported 
homosexual “rights.” See Marc Morano, “Park Service Seeks to ‘Modify’ 
Controversial Lincoln Video,” CNSNews.com, March 4, 2003. 

The Teen Suicide Myth 

Why has such indoctrination and rewriting of history taken place? One 
reason is that homosexual activists have been enormously successful in 
convincing educators and the general public that homosexual teenagers are 
more susceptible to dropping out of school and committing suicide because 
they are “harassed.” However, this argument turns out to be a Trojan horse to 
get educators to open the doors for homosexual activists. 

Marilyn Elias, in USA Today, wrote: 

Gay and lesbian teenagers are only slightly more likely than 
heterosexual kids to attempt suicide, contrary to past studies that suggest 
gay youths have about triple the rate of trying suicide, says a Cornell 
University psychologist.. ..Studies finding that about 30% of gay 
adolescents have attempted suicide exaggerated the rates because they 
surveyed the most disturbed youngsters and didn't separate thought from 
action, says Ritch Savin-Williams. Nearly all research on this topic has 
drawn teens from support groups or shelters, where the most troubled 
gather, and has taken at face value the claim of a suicide attempt, he says. 
Savin- Williams’ own two studies. ..focus on 349 students ages 17 to 25. 
When they said they had tried to kill themselves, he asked what method 
they used. He also separated out the small minority who attended support 
groups.... Over half of reported suicide attempts turned out to be “thinking 
about it” rather than trying anything.... The other study of 266 college men 
and women found that gay youths were not significantly more likely than 
straight classmates to have tried to take their own lives. Again, the 



58 



homosexual students were more likely to report “attempts” that further 
questioning revealed as thoughts. ...Poorly designed studies that exaggerate 
the suicide risk “pathologize gay youth, and that's not fair to them,” he 
says. 

Please let us make it clear that any act that takes a promising young life, 
whether it is suicide or murder, is tragic and grieves God. However, to 
deliberately manipulate such a tragedy for political gain and to entrap more 
children in a dangerous behavior is reprehensible. Radical homosexual activists 
use many questionable research methods to push their agenda (like the much- 
disputed and widely discredited claim of Alfred Kinsey that 10 percent of the 
adult population is homosexual). This ties directly into Madsen's and Kirk's 
policy that it makes no difference whether such claims were truth or lies, as 
long as the lies work to promote their political agenda. 

P-FLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) received a $250,000 
grant to push homosexual indoctrination in public schools, based on the 
unproven claim that homosexual teens are far more likely to commit suicide. 
GLSEN is given full access to school facilities (which many Christian groups are 
still denied despite Supreme Court decisions to the contrary) to set up so-called 
safe zones for “questioning” youth, and to promote their agenda without 
question. 

So what can a parent do? How can families protect their children when 
they have no other option than the public schools for their children? It is not 
easy, because homosexual activists have learned that intimidation and 
stonewalling work wonders in helping them to achieve their aims. 

Mary Clossey, who had children in the Newton, Massachusetts, public 
schools, illustrates the problem. When her son brought home The Perks of Being 
a Wallflower, she was alarmed at the graphic homosexual content. She decided 
to complain to school officials and to the mayor of Newton. She found that the 
mayor's office refused to return her call. When she called school officials, she 
experienced “arrogant disrespect for parents.” With the support of other furious 
parents, she went to the local prosecutor, who had been warned that she was 
coming. As a result, the receptionist would not allow her to see him, and she 
was continually stonewalled by other public officials when she tried to air her 
objections to the book. 

Back in the late 1 980s, a young woman, who was Craig's friend, worked in 
the public policy division at Focus on the Family. “Linda” (a pseudonym) stood 
up to the homosexual activists in Los Angeles City schools as they attempted 
(and eventually) succeeded in implementing their agenda into the school 
system. Linda had to deal with her car being vandalized while she was attending 
school board meetings, as well as enduring death threats from radical 
homosexual activists. 

However, we cannot allow the intimidation of homosexual activists to 
silence Christians in the public schools. While many Christian families have 
chosen to either home school or enroll their children in private schools (at great 
personal expense) to avoid the indoctrination of their children by radical 



59 



homosexual activists, public schools remain the only option for millions of 
Christian families. If you have a child in public schools, it is vital that you know 
what is going on. It will require great diligence on your part, but your efforts are 
crucial if the radical homosexual activists are to be stymied. You will need to 
review curriculum, especially anything that falls into the categories of “family 
life education,” “diversity,” or “respecting differences.” This will not be easy. 
You may be stonewalled, you may face threats, and you may be labeled a 
troublemaker. But it is your right as a parent to know what is being taught to your 
child. 

Your chances are also better if you are organized with other concerned 
parents, rather than fighting the school administration alone. Network with 
other Christian parents in your child's school. Then, when something 
troublesome comes up, you can go as a group to protest to the school board 
and administration. There is strength in numbers. 

An example of this happened in Fairfax County, Virginia, where a large 
group of parents objected to the implementation of a new socalled anti- 
discrimination policy that included sexual orientation. More than two hundred 
parents rallied before the school board vote on the new policy, and their actions 
blocked the door's opening to pro-homosexual curriculum in their public school 
system. 

And, if you still find yourself stonewalled, you can call the Alliance Defense 
Fund at 1 -800-TELL-ADF or send an e-mail to info@telladf.org, and we will be 
able to provide you with information on the legal recourse you may have with 
your local school district to force it to show you what your child is being 
taught. 

Finally, if your school system continues to persist in offering a pro- 
homosexual curriculum, you may need to pray for the Lord's direction in 
seeking an alternative from the public schools for your children. As difficult as 
this may be for some, it may be the only recourse to save your children from 
homosexual indoctrination. 

One of parents’ key religious freedoms is the ability to raise their children 
to accept Jesus Christ into their lives and to train them to hold biblically based 
beliefs. In our public schools today, this religious freedom is under daily 
assault. Sad to say, large numbers of children may have already been lost to the 
pro-homosexual efforts that have been quietly implemented in our public 
schools over the past decade. But harm to future generations can still be 
prevented. Confused children can still be redeemed. However, it is going to take 
an army of parents, not just one individual here and there, who will rise up in 
righteous anger over what is happening to our children. If concerned parents are 
educated and organized, rather than just being stray voices in the wilderness 
against the onslaught of homosexual activism, they will have a greater chance 
of not only stopping the advancement of the homosexual agenda in public 
schools, but of reversing it as well. 

To talk about everything that is happening in the public schools regarding 
the homosexual agenda would require an entire separate book, but hopefully 
this chapter has given you a glimpse of how children are being taught to reject 



60 



biblical values and embrace homosexual behavior. The day when we can trust 
our public school system to affirm America's traditional values is over. It is time 
to take back our schools from the radical homosexual activists for the sake of 
our children. 



61 



CHAPTER FOUR 



The Lavender Tower 



We have had more challenges to our basic right to exist on 
campus settings during the past two years than in the previous 
fifty-five combined. It's not just us — this is hitting Catholics and 
Muslims and others. What we are seeing is a growing challenge 
to religious free speech 

— Steve Hayner, former president of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship 



In the early 1980s at the University of Califomia-Davis, Craig witnessed 
firsthand how radical homosexual activists used intimidation to force a college 
administration to bow to their demands, at the expense of other students and 
legitimate academic programs. 

In spring 1982, the university faced the possibility of making some budget 
cuts. One of the first places it looked was the so-called women's studies 
department that consisted of a group of about thirteen lesbian students who 
followed a charismatic leader named Merline. As Craig walked around the 
campus, he would often run into this group. They would be holding hands and 
listening breathlessly to every word Merline had to say. 

When the university announced it would be eliminating Merline's position 
from the budget, one would have thought that it was calling for the elimination 
of the college's prestigious veterinary school. The lesbians chained themselves 
around the area where the school administration building was located, unfurled 
posters, attacked the administration in the campus newspaper, and eventually 
staged a sit-in in the dean's office. How dare they cut Merline's position! By the 
time the students were finished, one would have thought that Merline was Joan 
of Arc. The administration caved in, restored Merline's position, and eliminated 
the Mass Communications department. 

* During Craig's time at the University of Califomia-Davis, the homosexual 
activist groups staged a special week of “tolerance and understanding” for 
homosexual behavior. One of their requests was for all heterosexuals to refrain 
from any public expression of affection, such as holding hands, because such 
expression was “offensive” to those who engaged in homosexual behavior. 

About six months later, Craig started graduate school at California State 
University-Sacramento, about twenty miles east of Davis. Who did he mn into 
almost immediately? Merline and the same group of lesbians! She had found a 
way to get herself on the payroll there as well and she and her following 
bounced back and forth between the two campuses. 



62 



As sad as this story already is, it would take a tragic turn. 

One day, a sweet girl named Laura came to Craig's InterVarsity Christian 
Fellowship group on campus. Laura was hurting when she came to the 
fellowship; but the group welcomed her with open arms, and she quickly heard 
about the healing power in Jesus Christ. Laura accepted Christ, and one of the 
more mature Christian girls in the chapter started to mentor her. 



The thing about this scholarship is that it could benefit any student in any program, as long 
as the student identifies him or herself as gay, lesbian, bisexual or trans gendered. 

— Eva Gaffney, Bridgewater State College spokeswoman 



About two weeks later, Craig was walking around the campus when he ran 
into Merline and her group of lesbians. He was shocked to see that they had a 
new member: Laura. He expressed his concern to his friend who was mentoring 
her. 



Unfortunately, neither Craig's friend nor anyone else in the chapter was 
aware of Merline and her Svengali type influence. The other members of his 
InterVarsity chapter expressed little concern over the matter. However, in a few 
weeks, Laura quit returning phone calls and coming to the group. Eventually, 
she disappeared completely. 

About ten years later, a friend of Craig's from the InterVarsity group went 
into a small shop in downtown Sacramento, not knowing it was a lesbian 
bookstore. Before she left, she noticed the woman standing behind the counter. 
It was Laura. Her sweet face had been hardened, and her kind manner was 
nothing more than a memory. She was trapped in the lesbian lifestyle. 

t One of the phenomena on some campuses is “LUGS” (Lesbians until 
Graduation). These are women who choose to engage in lesbian behavior during 
their college years but revert back to heterosexual behavior after graduating. 

We share this story because it is an example of how pervasive homosexual 
behavior and its promotion are on our nation's university campuses. It is also a 
tragic reminder of what can happen when an individual looking for love and 
acceptance falls into the wrong company. 

Queer Studies 101 

Just as happens in the public schools, millions of Americans, at great 
sacrifice, send their almost-grown, very vulnerable children off to college 
campuses in search of the education they will need to succeed in life. Their 
expectations are that their sons and daughters will master calculus or history or 
literature. Yet, here is a small sample of some of the “courses” being offered on 
university campuses today: 

• “Black Lavender: A Study of Black Gay and Lesbian Plays, and Dramatic 
Constructions in American Theatre” (Brown University). 



63 



• “Discourses of Desire: Introduction to Gay and Lesbian Studies” (Columbia 
University). 

• “Science, Technology, and Queer Theory” (Yale University). 

• “Lesbian Communities and Identities” (Stanford University). 

• “Lesbian Novels Since World War II” (Swarthmore University). 

• “Queer Media” (Swarthmore University). 

• “Representations of Lesbians and Gay Men in Popular Culture” (Georgetown 
University). 

• “Lesbian/Bisexual Women's Theories/Lives/Activisms” (University of 
Arizona). 

• “Lesbian Lives in the U.S.” (University of Iowa). 

• “Feminist Perspectives on Lesbian Studies: Crossing Erotic Boundaries” 
(University of Michigan). 

• “Gay Men and Homophobia in American Culture” (University of 
Minnesota). 

• “Lesbian/Queer Cultural Production” (University of Minnesota). 

• “Backgrounds of Homoerotic Literature” (Rutgers University). 

• “Issues in Lesbian and Gay Visual Representation” (University of Califomia- 
Irvine). 

• “Queer Textuality” (University of Califomia-Santa Barbara). 

While college students are being offered courses in “queer theory,” they 
continue their ignorance of basic information, such as elementary level U.S. 
history. For example, at the top fifty-five secular colleges and universities in the 
United States, only 23 percent of the students knew that James Madison was a 
primary author of the U.S. Constitution and 40 percent of the students could 
not identify the correct fifty-year time frame in which the Civil War was 
fought. 

Why does this surprise us when the University of Colorado's English 
Department offers more than twice the number of multiculturalism and 
“gender” courses it offers on American literature? 

In addition, some college campuses are now going out of their way to 
recruit individuals who practice homosexual behavior, just like they would a 
star quarterback. For example, Bridgewater State College in Massachusetts 
announced that it was offering a special scholarship for homosexual students 
who were “cut off financially” from their parents because of their sexual 
behavior. College spokeswoman Eva Gaffney said, “The thing about this 
scholarship is that it could benefit a student in any program, as long as the 
student identifies himself or herself as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or 
transgendered.” 

Judith Brown, director of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Center at 
Tufts University, says, “Schools are inviting these students because they 
question the norms. They make people question their own assumptions, and 
that's a key to learning and growing as people.” 



64 



In a Boston Globe article, Patrick Healy wrote about admissions counselors 
at university campuses who believe that “the ‘coming out’ experience in high 
school can breed self-confidence, leadership abilities, cultural awareness, and 
other characteristics that colleges want.” 

“All Animals Are Equal, but Some 
Are More Equal Than Others” 

In their efforts to actively recruit individuals who practice homosexual 
behavior, many colleges now have a check-off box on their admissions forms for 
“sexual orientation.” Jibil Salaam, the associate director of admissions for 
inclusion and diversity at the University of New Hampshire, says, “If we truly 
want these students, it's vital to ask the question. . . .it will help us really tailor a 
message of support to them.” 

For instance, the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) has 
received an endowment from the Charles R. Williams Project on Sexual 
Orientation Law to develop the nation's first “think tank” dedicated to the legal 
advancement of the homosexual legal agenda. The university received an initial 
$2.5 million gift that was described as “the largest donation ever given to an 
academic institution in support of a gay and lesbian academic program in any 
discipline.” 

Some universities have gone as far as to throw all logic out the window by 
tailoring their student housing policies to support homosexual behavior and 
preferences. Gene Edward Veith wrote the following in World magazine: “Many 
universities now have co-ed dorms, with men and women living on the same 
floor. But some have taken the next step: co-ed dorm rooms. Not that these 
colleges are encouraging their students to have sex with each other. Quite the 
contrary. Having a man and a woman share the same sleeping quarters is just 
another way to make homosexuals feel more comfortable.” 

Veith adds that at Swarthmore College and Haverford College, homosexual 
groups claimed that it was “heterosexist” to require roommates to be of the 
same sex. He continues, “The reasoning went like this: A girl forced to live with 
a man she didn't know would feel very uncomfortable. Besides, the straight 
roommate might be homophobic. In order to avoid sexual issues, gay men 
should be allowed to room with females.” 

Another student, who identified himself as “homoflexible,” said, “I live 
with straight guys now, and I definitely see the sexual tensions, which have 
made me very uncomfortable.” 

Gamma Rho Lambda, the first “lesbian sorority,” was created at Arizona 
State University after Sigma Phi Alpha, the first male homosexual fraternity 
came into existence there. Sam Holdren, a member of the male homosexual 
fraternity, said: “I think it's amazing. I love it; this campus is becoming so queer- 
friendly and supportive, it's wonderful.” 

At Wesleyan College, students no longer have to identify themselves as 
male or female on their health forms. Instead, they are told to describe their 



65 



“gender identity history.” Wesleyan also eliminated the word women's from the 
female rugby team. Why? Because several of the girls have chosen to be 
identified as males. One of the girls said, “We don't want people yelling, ‘Go 
girls.’” Concerning the college that bears his name, John Wesley must be 
spinning in his grave. 

Smith College students (all female) voted to eliminate female pronouns 
from the student constitution because “she” and “her” were “insensitive” to 
transgendered students. Gene Edward Veith wrote in World magazine, “Since the 
language only has two genders, some activists are calling for new pronouns. The 
most politically correct are using ‘ze’ instead of ‘he’ or ‘she’ and ‘hir’ instead of 
‘him’ or ‘her.’” 

Then there is the bathroom problem. The United States Students 
Association has urged the nation's colleges and universities to provide “gender 
neutral” rest rooms for transgender students, in order to “protect” them from 
alleged harassment and physical violence. USSA spokeswoman Kristy Ringor 
said, “If a person is not safe [in a rest room on a college campus], that person 
won't necessarily be able to go to college.” 

The right of the homosexual to have housing that makes him or her feel 
comfortable trumps the right of a heterosexual young man and young woman to 
have housing that does not place them in either a sexually tempting or sexually 
compromising environment. In addition, those individuals who have religious 
objections to homosexual behavior and therefore would rather not live with 
someone who practices homosexual behavior are labeled “homophobes” or 
have their requests fall upon deaf ears. We are reminded of the words of George 
Orwell in his classic book Animal Farm: “All animals are equal, but some are 
more equal than others.” 

For example, ADF has been involved in several cases regarding the rights of 
people with sincere religious beliefs to not be forced to live with someone who 
practiced homosexual behavior or other behaviors that violated their beliefs. In 
one case, Rader v. University of Nebraska, a Christian student wished to move 
out of the collegemandated student housing because of the anti-Christian 
behaviors of the other residents. In another case, two Orthodox Jewish students 
who objected to the immoral atmosphere in college dormitories were denied 
their request to live elsewhere besides student housing. Yet, while people of 
faith find themselves forced to put up with behavior that offends them, those 
who practice homosexual behavior are catered to, at the expense of everyone 
else. The University of Nebraska case was a victory that affirmed the right of 
Christian students, while the two Jewish students lost their case. 

This begs the following questions: Are these universities willing to recruit 
students who are serious about their religious faith with the same zeal they 
recruit those who practice homosexual behavior? And, second, once 
homosexual behavior is accepted and affirmed on the university campus, what 
comes next? The answers are disturbing for those who cherish religious freedom 
and who seek to protect their children from those who would exploit them 
sexually. 



66 



Those who advocate the teaching of homosexual behavior on college 
campuses state that it is just a way of teaching students to think critically and 
independently. However, that is the last thing it is. Dennis Evans, the director of 
credential programs at the University of Califomia-Irvine, made the following 
observation, “How is it, then, that the character and content of much of the 
work in gay and lesbian studies so often seems to originate with the author's 
need to defend, to rationalize, or to attack? The works are invariably crafted as 
a priori polemics, and, as such, their purposes are more political than academic, 
more rhetorical than scholarly. They certainly neither model nor promote 
independent or critical thinking.” 

The main purpose of such “studies” is seemingly twofold: to academically 
affirm homosexual behavior with those who are already trapped in the lifestyle 
and to silence and attack anyone who disagrees (i.e., those who have biblical 
objections to such behavior). 

Jeremy Beer, a former student at Purdue University, remembers the 
following remarks by his philosophy teacher during the first day of class: “While 
you are in this class, you will be expected to be an agnostic or atheist. Anyone 
with sincere religious beliefs will be expected to take off his ‘religious hat’ when 
he enters this class and replace it with an agnostic one. That's the only way 
philosophy can proceed. Does anyone have a problem with that?” 

Edmund White, a homosexual professor at Princeton University (which was 
founded by devout Christians), openly wrote about his hostility to Christianity: 
“It seems to me that the biggest enemy to homosexuality is Christianity. ...I 
hate it when gays try to accommodate Christianity and create their own gay 
group. ...Any selfrespecting gay should be an atheist.” 

At the University of Notre Dame, the school recently held its first “queer 
film festival.” Nicholas Sakurai of the pro-homosexual United States Student 
Association said, “The landscape has changed. Young people are coming out in 
droves in high school since the ‘90s. They're now in college and challenging 
administrators who would deny them a place in campus life.” 

Sadly, this same attitude is prevalent on other university campuses 
originally founded by Christians. Around every turn, those students who hold 
religious beliefs are ridiculed and vilified, and much of this can be attributed to 
the work of homosexual activists. While homosexual students are recruited, 
religious students are vilified and, in many cases, discriminated against. 

At Tufts University in Massachusetts, the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship 
chapter faced expulsion from campus because it would not allow an avowed 
lesbian to hold a leadership position with the group. She appealed to the 
student senate, which took away the chapter's access to campus facilities and 
funding because it “violated” the school's anti-discrimination policy, even 
though the group made it very clear that the members believed homosexual 
behavior violated their organization's core biblical beliefs. 

The chapter was allowed back on campus only after a public backlash. 
However, InterVarsity was put on probation for “intolerance.” Eventually, it was 
allowed to include adherence to biblical teachings as a qualification for 



67 



leadership. Nevertheless, the chapter's leaders were subjected to campus 
“tolerance” education, described by Gregory Fung, the president of the chapter: 
“We did what they asked us to do. We went to their tolerance classes. You think 
the institutions that teach tolerance won't turn around and bite you. But they 
do. We thought the people who taught all the classes would be tolerant. No 
way. They were determined to cure us of our intolerance.” 

So-called tolerance, as Gregory Fung found out, really means intolerance 
for any viewpoint that does not affirm homosexual behavior. What happened at 
Tufts University is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the suppression 
of religious freedoms of Christians and other people of faith on college 
campuses. 

Steve Hayner, the president of InterVarsity, put it succinctly: “We have had 
more challenges to our basic right to exist on campus settings during the past 
two years than in the previous fifty-five combined. It's not just us — this is 
hitting Catholics and Muslims and others. What we are seeing is a growing 
challenge to religious free speech.” 

The University of North Carolina and Rutgers University threatened to 
revoke university recognition of the InterVarsity chapters unless it modified its 
charter to allow non-Christians or those who practice behaviors contrary to 
Scripture to be leaders. At UNC, the administration finally agreed to not revoke 
the recognition of InterVarsity, but Rutgers held steadfast. Alan Kors, of the 
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said: “UNC couldn't defend in 
public what it wasn't willing to do in private. Everybody on campus would 
immediately see the absurdity ' if an evangelical Christian who believed 
homosexuality to be a sin tried to become president of the university's Bisexual, 
Gay, and Lesbian Alliance. The administration would have led candlelight vigils 
on behalf of diversity and free expression.” 

Talk show host Laura Ingraham agreed: “One can only imagine if a group of 
devout Christians tried to join a Rutgers lesbian student group. The Christian 
students would probably be brought up on disciplinary charges, accused of 
violating Rutgers’ ‘principle of community.’ ...Perhaps if it changed its name to 
InterVarsity Students for Intramural Sex, it would not be bothered by intolerant 
campus bureaucrats.” 

On March 19, 2003, after an avalanche of negative publicity and the work 
of Alliance Defense Fund allied attorney David French, the Rutgers 
administration relented and allowed the InterVarsity group to set their own 
standards for leadership without facing expulsion from campus. The fact that a 
case as obvious as this took so much time to settle demonstrates the 
tremendous influence that those who oppose the gospel have on college 
campuses today. 

In fact, ADF has been involved in defending free speech and freedom of 
association rights for Christian groups on numerous other college campuses. We 
have found that many of these so-called “antidiscrimination” policies evaporate 
once they are brought to light for examination and college administrators 
quickly back down. 



68 



At Harvard University, much speech that does not affirm homosexual 
behavior has been effectively silenced. For example, an employee at a dining 
hall on campus, who had come out of homosexual behavior and accepted 
Christ, was vehemently attacked in the Harvard Daily Crimson, which accused 
him of being intolerant and promoting homosexual self-hatred. When an 
admissions officer was asked if dissenting views were allowed on campus with 
regard to homosexual behavior, he said, “Well, it's not really something one can 
debate about.” ! At Harvard Law School's Pound Hall, there is a large oil 
painting that hangs in a place of honor to celebrate “Deborah A. Batts 1972: 
U.S. District Court Judge... and the first and only openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual 
member of the federal judiciary.” 

Even the American Red Cross has faced the wrath of homosexual activists 
on college campuses. Two “student legislators” at Western Oregon University 
launched an effort to ban Red Cross blood drives from the campus because the 
Red Cross (out of legitimate health concerns about the transmission of the 
HIV/ AIDS virus) asked potential donors if they have engaged in forms of 
homosexual sex. Student senator Shauna Bates said, “By continuing to allow the 
Red Cross on campus, the university is telling all the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and 
transgender students that we don't care about you.” 

Yeshiva University is a private Orthodox Jewish college that adheres to 
traditional Jewish teaching that homosexual behavior is sinful. Two lesbians 
who wanted to have access to married student housing for themselves and their 
partners sued the university after their request was denied. In what has chilling 
ramifications for the religious freedom for any person or organization that holds 
to a biblical view of homosexual behavior, the court has ruled against the 
university. 

This case could help establish a legal precedent to force private religious 
colleges to not only give homosexual partners the same housing as married 
couples, but to force them to violate their core beliefs. This is something that 
the radical homosexual activists and their allies are very much aware of and will 
most likely exploit in the future. 

ACLU attorney Matt Coles said, “It's a fabulous ruling. I think the fact that 
it's a private organization helps make it clear that it's unfair for anyone to use 
marriage as a qualification for anything as long as gay people are excluded from 
same-sex marriage.” Thus, the radical homosexual activists and their allies got 
a double whammy in this case: forcing religious organizations to violate their 
beliefs while promoting legalized same-sex marriage as the solution to the 
problem. 

Mandatory Funding 

Two hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson said: “[To] compel a man to 
furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he 
disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. ’E This tyranny is occurring on 
almost daily basis on university campuses through mandatory student fees to 
fund radical homosexual and other left-leaning organizations. 



69 



Homosexual activists on university campuses not only want to silence or 
even banish groups that do not affirm homosexual behavior; they want people 
with sincere religious beliefs in opposition to such behavior to fund their 
agenda. An example of this is the case of Southworth v. Board of Regents 
University of Wisconsin System. 

In 1996, Scott Southworth, who was then a second-year law student, was 
told to pay $331.50 to the University of Wisconsin for his mandatory student 
fee over and above his regular tuition. If he did not do so, he could not get his 
grades or graduate from the university. Scott paid up, but as a committed 
Christian, he wanted to know where his money was going. 

After some investigation, he was outraged. A portion of his student fee was 
being used to fund groups that advocated homosexual behavior. Scott and other 
Christian students made repeated attempts to convince university officials to let 
them “opt out” of paying the mandatory fees, based on religious freedom and 
First Amendment grounds. The administration refused to budge. 

Scott felt he was left with little choice but to take formal legal action 
against the university. God led Scott to ADF, which was able to connect him 
with Jordan Lorence, now an ADF vice president. Lorence is one of the leading 
constitutional lawyers in the country. At every court level, Scott won, but the 
university kept appealing the case. 

The case finally made it all the way to the United States Supreme Court, 
which remanded (returned) the case 9-0 back to the U.S. District Court to 
decide one critical issue: Do University of Wisconsin student government 
leaders who allocate mandatory student fees do so on a viewpoint-neutral basis, 
or are some funded groups given preference over others? 

The homosexual activists and their allies crowed throughout the media that 
they had won a decisive victory to continue the funding of their agenda by 
those who had sincere religious objections to homosexual behavior. But Scott 
Southworth and ADF were committed to keep up the fight. 

On October 1, 2002, the U.S Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh 
District ruled that aspects of the University of Wisconsin's student fee system 
remained unconstitutional, and it did not vindicate the university's position on 
mandatory student fees that we have opposed for years. 

The university had argued that it should not have to make any changes in 
its policy to protect the rights of students forced to pay mandatory student 
activity fees to fund groups opposed to their personal beliefs. In fact, because 
of the litigation in Southworth, the university changed many discriminatory 
policies. However, in this case, the university was hoping that the court would 
rule that it could return to its previous policy that discriminated against 
Christians and Christian groups. The previous policy denied funding to religious 
groups. On that point, the university lost. 

Interestingly, the court upheld portions of the university's policy that had 
been changed only after the ADF-funded litigation. As a result, here's where 
things now stand: 



70 



• Student government members must vow not to discriminate on the basis of 
viewpoint in their decision-making. 

• The ban on funding religious groups and political groups has been repealed. 

• The university established an appeals process for groups denied funding. 

• When the student government denies funding to an applicant group, the 
student government must record the vote and state in writing why they 
denied funding to a group. 

The key point is that if the university does not follow these guidelines 
imposed by the court, students cannot be required to pay the mandatory 
student activity fee. At least those who oppose the use of their monies to 
promote homosexual behavior have some avenue of recourse. 

Intellectualizing Disordered Sexual Behavior 

Lately homosexual behavior on college campuses is taking a dangerous new 
turn — the promotion of sexual relations between adults and children, known as 
pedophilia. 

We mention the new promotion of pedophilia in the context of talking 
about the influence of homosexual behavior on college campuses, because, 
despite all objections to the contrary, the two are often intrinsically linked. 

• The American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 
(DSM-IV-TR) defines pedophilia as “sexual activity with a prepubescent child 
(generally 13 years of age or younger).” We, however, use a broader definition 
to include postpubescent children. 

Psychologist Eugene Abel found that homosexuals “sexually molest young 
boys with an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the 
molestation of girls.” A 1992 study by researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson 
discovered that homosexual males are three times more likely than heterosexual 
males to engage in pedophilia and that the average pedophile has sex with 20 to 
150 boys before he is caught. A 1988 study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior 
found that 86 percent of pedophiles identified themselves as either homosexual 
or bisexual. 

And there is a definite link as well between child molestation and later 
homosexual behavior. In a 2001 study, it was found that 46 percent of 
homosexuals and 22 percent of lesbians reported that they had been molested 
by a homosexual during childhood, compared to 7 percent of heterosexual men 
and 1 percent of heterosexual women. 

While trying to downplay the link between pedophilia and homosexual 
behavior in the media, many homosexual academics proudly proclaim their 
support for sex with children. For example, the homosexual newspaper, the San 
Francisco Sentinel, wrote, “The love between man and boys is at the foundation 
of homosexuality.” An article in the Journal of Homosexuality added that 
parents should view pedophiles “not as a rival or competitor, not as a theft of 
their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be 



71 



welcomed into their home.” 

A 1995 issue of Guide magazine (which also published the original 
homosexual manifesto by Kirk and Madsen) stated: “We can be proud that the 
gay movement has been home to a few voices who have had the courage to say 
out loud that children are naturally sexual [and] deserve the right to sexual 
expression with whoever they choose. ...Instead of fearing being labeled 
pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children's 
sexuality.... We must do it for the children's sake.” 

A shot across the bow in this area occurred back in 1998 when the 
American Psychological Association (APA) published a study by three academics 
that concluded that sex between adults and minors might be a “positive 
experience” for the child. Ironically, the American Psychiatric Association, 
which provides guidelines for treatment of mental disorders, says: “These 
activities [pedophilia] are commonly explained with excuses and 
rationalizations that they have ‘educational value’ for the child, that the child 

derives ‘sexual pleasure’ from them, or that the child was ‘sexually provocative’ 
» 



Congress and the mainstream media roundly denounced the APA study. 

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 355-0 to condemn the study. 

The promotion of pedophilia among college professors and other 

academics is nothing new. Consider the following examples: 

• In 1996, San Francisco State University Professor Gilbert Herdt stated in an 
interview with Paidika (an academic journal that promotes pedophilia) that 
“the category ‘child’ is a rhetorical device for inflaming what is really an 
irrational set of attitudes against sex with children.” 

• John Money, professor emeritus of Pediatrics and Medical Psychology at 
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, wrote in his 1987 book Boys on Their 
Contacts with Merc A Study of Sexually Expressed Friendships that those who 
oppose pedophilia do so because of “self-imposed, moralistic ignorance.” 

• The Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco 
(whose executive officer testified on the “educational value” of pornography 
as an “expert witness” on behalf of hard-core pomographers nationwide) 
published an article, “Sexual Rights of Children,” which said that there was 
“considerable evidence” that there is no “inherent harm in sexual expression 
in childhood.” 

• Penn State University hosted a conference on “Women's Health and 
Wellness” featuring Patrick Califia-Rice, an outspoken proponent of 
pedophilia and sadomasochism. Rice has stated, “Boy-lovers and the lesbians 
who have young lovers. ..are not child molesters. The child abusers are 
priests, teachers, therapists, cops, and parents who force their stale morality 
on to the young people in their custody. Instead of condemning pedophiles 
for their involvement with lesbian and gay youth, they should be 
commending them.” 



72 



* Alan extensively cross-examined this “expert” on his views that even the most 
extreme forms of hardcore pornography could never be legally “obscene.” 

John Leo, columnist for U.S. News and World Report, noted that he had 
seen a trend toward the promotion of pedophilia among academics as early as 
198® Leo mentioned his earlier observation in a recent column dealing with a 
book published by the University of Minnesota in 2002 titled “Harmful to 
Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex” by Dr. Judith Levine. The book 
features an introduction by former U.S. Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, who 
had advocated the teaching of masturbation and handing out condoms in public 
schools during her controversial term in the early days of the Clinton 
administration. 

In her book, Levine says that the Dutch age of consent law is a “good 
model” because it allows for sex between an adult and a child between the ages 
of twelve and sixteen if the child consents. In a phone interview, she added, 
“The research shows us that in some minority of cases, young — even quite 
young — people can have a positive [sexual] experience with an adult. That's 
what the research shows.” Levine believes that the real danger to children is 
not pedophiles but parents who “project their fears and their own lust for young 
flesh onto the mythically dangerous child molester.” 

The University of Minnesota published this book under the guise of 
“academic freedom,” a rationale often used by homosexual activists to 
introduce the promotion of homosexual behavior on university campuses. Yet, 
whenever Christians or other people of faith seek to express views on an issue, 
they are not protected under the same academic freedom argument. They are, 
as we have already seen, either silenced by the school's “tolerance” or 
“diversity” speech codes or claims of “separation of church and state,” or they 
are thrown off campus entirely. 

Professor Harris Mirkin of the University of Missouri-Kansas City published 
a study (funded with taxpayer money) that compared the “moral panic” about 
pedophilia to previous “panics” about feminism and homosexuality. His 
article was supported by Sheldon E. Steinbach, general counsel for the American 
Council on Education, who said, “The appropriate place to debate the 
legitimacy of a professor's thought is in the marketplace of ideas.... Today's 
heresy often becomes tomorrow's orthodoxy” [emphasis ours]. 

That last statement is extremely chilling but also very true. Just as 
homosexual behavior has now become accepted orthodoxy on many university 
campuses and Christians and Orthodox Jews have become the heretics, we are 
going down the same road with pedophilia. As the homosexual agenda 
continues to sexualize our culture, other once-forbidden behaviors are exalted 
as just more alternative lifestyles. The result is that the well-being of millions of 
children is at risk, along with the right of parents to protect their children from 
sexual exploitation. 

The Wall Street Journal noted this when it wrote: “It is Dr. Mirkin's view, 
published in the Journal of Homosexuality, that the ‘panic over pedophilia’ is 
much like the way people once viewed female sexuality and homosexuality. 



73 



Pedophilia, he notes, has been permissible or obligatory in some cultures in 
certain periods of history. We might point out that the same can be said of 
human sacrifice.” 

We received a heartbreaking reminder of the dangers of the promotion of 
pedophilia and other deviant sexual behaviors from an e-mail we received at the 
Alliance Defense Fund. We must note up front that the pedophile in question 
here is a heterosexual (and pedophilia is not strictly limited to those who 
engage in homosexual behavior; however, it is prevalent). This e-mail shows 
how the promotion of pedophilia in academia poses a significant threat to our 
children, regardless of whether the abused child is a boy or a girl: 

I am writing to you today because I have had enough, and I am 
wondering if your organization can help! It is so hard as a parent to raise 
our child in a secular, increasingly sexual and violent society we live in. I 
am very disturbed and even angry about the trend today of publishing 
“scholarly” books about the topics of child-adult sex, and pedophilia. These 
books are published under the pretense of furthering academic debate, yet 
the real goal is to legitimize sinful, deviant behavior. 

I am particularly angry about the publication of Harmful to Minors: The 
Perils of Protecting Children from Sex by Judith Levine. ...It advocates sexual 
relationships between children and adults. Ms. Levine says that children 
can handle sexual relationships, and it is the fault of the parents and the 
“religious right” that these relationships are not treated as healthy and 
natural. 

One particularly disturbing thing I read in an interview with Ms. Levine 
discusses Internet predators. Ms. Levine claims that stories about 
pedophiles and sexual predators on the Internet have been overblown by 
the media and by parents. She claims that children can “handle the sexual 
chat” they might encounter online. I beg to differ. 

Here in [our] area, we have had 3 children in the past 2 months who 
have been sexually assaulted by pedophiles first encountered on the 
Internet. Last night there was a tragic story on our local news about a 13- 
year-old girl from Katy, Texas, just outside of Houston. She met a 34-year- 
old man in a chat room. After a couple of weeks of what Ms. Levine would 
call “harmless sexual chat,” this pedophile sent the little girl a one-way bus 
ticket to Seattle. He instructed the girl in how to remove her computer 
harddrive so no one could find them together. Unfortunately, the girl chose 
to make the trip to Seattle. Ms. Levine would say the girl should be allowed 
to make this decision for herself as a sexual being. I wonder if she 
condones what happened next. Tragically, this girl was brutally sexually 
assaulted and raped over a period of five days. When she was finally able to 
call for help, the police rescued her. Now, police in Seattle have learned 
that he assaulted at least 2 other girls, 12 and 13, and was attempting to 
lure an 1 1 -year-old girl to his apartment. 

This little girl got on the bus of her own free will. However, I do not 
believe for one second that she was able to comprehend the consequences 



74 



of her decision. Sick people like Ms. Levine want to push the idea that sex 
between a minor and an adult can be a good thing. This poor little girl will 
be scarred for life because of this terrible experience . . . 

My greatest fear is that more pedophiles and sexual predators will use 
material in this book to justify their evil plans to harm children. They will 
say, “Look, this scholarly review says that what I am doing is OK. ...” 

This tragic story is an example of what happens to the most innocent 
members of our society, when homosexual behavior, pedophilia, and other 
sexual disorders are not only seen as normal, but are given credence by those in 
academia. This is where the path of acceptance of homosexual behavior in our 
nation's universities and academia as a whole is leading. And just as college 
campuses have been the first wave in societal change, what is being promoted 
there today will become orthodoxy in our culture tomorrow. 

Therefore, not only is the religious freedom to share and live the gospel, as 
well as freedom of conscience, either under attack or totally denied on college 
campuses, the freedom for parents to protect their children from sexual 
predators is under assault as well. What has occurred in academia is just a 
microcosm of the greater goal of homosexual activists: to use the power of the 
government to silence and punish those who do not affirm homosexual 
behavior. And just as the anti-war radicals of the 1960s found their ways into 
the corridors of power in the 1970s and beyond, the radical homosexual 
activists on university campuses today have and will continue to take greater 
and greater roles in determining American public policy for the future. 



75 



CHAPTER FIVE 



The Family under Attack 



The storm that will break over America after but a single vote 
legalizes gay marriage will surely be a moment of decisive social 
reckoning. In the wake of the first legalization, the battle over gay 
marriage will be characterized by rapidly escalating confrontation, 
followed by a radical, nationwide re solution... As soon as even 
a single state legalizes same-sex marriage, the nation will be plunged 
into a furious legal, political, and cultural struggle. The bitter and 
ongoing polarization in even an exceedingly liberal state like Vermont 
is a clear foreshadowing of the conflict to come. As legal and political 
battles over traveling couples spread from state -to-state, the chaos 
will multiply and the courts, already inclined to mandate 
same-sex marriage, will grow increasingly receptive to arguments 
that the Full Faith and Credit Clause demands national gay marriage. 
And the even stronger arguments for nationally mandated 
gay marriage under the Constimtion' s equal-protection clause 
will also find favor in the courts. 

— Stanley Kurtz, writing in National Review 



What Stanley Kurtz warned about happened on November 18, 2003. When the 
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, in a 4-3 decision, citing the Provincial 
Court of Ontario as a source for legal precedent, ruled that same-sex couples 
have a newly discovered legal right to “marry,” the court radically redefined 
marriage for the citizens of the Commonwealth — ignoring nearly four hundred 
years of state and national history and stripping marriage of its core purpose of 
uniting men and women as the basic unit of the family. One judge's vote has 
changed the course of history. America's moment of reckoning had come. 

* The same court ruled on March 21, 2004, that the state's law against incest 
did not apply to step-parents. 

As Jeff Jacoby wrote in the Boston Globe, “This job of the judiciary is to 
interpret the law, but this was no mere interpretation. It was a wholesale 
rewriting of the law to make it say and mean things it had never said or meant 
before.” 

Why is this battle so important? Because it goes to the very heart of God's 
plan for marriage and the family. When anyone tinkers with that plan, the 
emotional, physical, and spiritual well-being of future generations is put at 
severe risk. 



76 



For instance, in Europe a generation of children is growing up with no idea 
of what a traditional family is like. In countries such as Norway, Sweden, 
Iceland, and Denmark, it has been decades since many children have known 
what it is like to live in a traditional family with a mother and a father. More 
than half of the children in Europe are bom to unwed mothers. In Sweden, 54 
percent of all children are bom out of wedlock. In Norway, the figure is 49 
percent, in Denmark, 46 percent, and in Iceland, it is over 65 percent. In 
northern Norway, the illegitimacy problem is so bad that in 2002 an astonishing 
82.27 percent of children were bom out of wedlock. And, in America, 26.7 
percent of children bom to white mothers and 68.8 percent of children bom to 
black mothers are out of wedlock. Over 43 percent of all children bom in 
America will live in a single-parent home sometime in their childhood. 

Why has this occurred in Europe and why is it beginning to grow in 
America? Much of it has to do with the years of government subsidization of 
single parents and now the new push for “domestic partners” for homosexual 
couples, which also discourages marriage for heterosexuals. According to Erik 
Kofod of Denmark, “Because of the social welfare systems in Scandinavia, a 
woman has to be stupid not to realize that she has a better situation if she is 
not married. It's an appalling system that motivates people to do things that are 
unhealthy for society and for children.” 

But it is not only the social welfare system that has caused this problem. 
Same-sex “marriage” or its equivalents have increasingly cheapened marriage. 
The situation in Europe is important because the homosexual agenda is seeking 
to send us down that same path. With the growth of domestic-partner 
ordinances, civil unions in Vermont, and the attempts to change laws elsewhere 
(such as the recommendation of the American Law Institute, which played a 
major role in bringing “no-fault” divorce to state law as a great “solution” to 
“archaic” divorce laws), marriage is being increasingly cheapened to the point 
that it could soon become irrelevant. 

Stanley Kurtz, who holds a doctorate in social anthropology from Harvard, 
has commented on this frequently. He says, “Gay marriage is part and parcel of 
a whole new stage of marital decline — a stage still relatively unfamiliar in the 
United States. In this new stage of marital decline, couples don't just cohabit 
before they become parents. Couples cohabit after they become parents. 
Because gay marriage helps to break apart the ideas of marriage and 
parenthood, it is closely associated with this advanced stage of marital decline.” 



We can win the freedom to marry. Possibly within five years. 
— Evan Wolfson, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund 



Kurtz adds. 

The National Swedish Social Insurance Board recently convened a 
panel in which two legal experts recommended changes in Swedish family 
law. One invoked same-sex parenting to argue for legal recognition of three- 



77 



and even four-parent families. According to this scholar, the antiquated 
two-parent standard virtually forces lesbian couples to find anonymous 
sperm donors, rather than form a more complex family with, say, gay 
sperm donors with whom they feel close. The polyamory movement has 
reached Sweden, and there are now Swedes who would seize on triple or 
quadruple parenting to usher in legalized polyamory.... With so many 
dissolved cohabitors and gay parents, why not do away with the two-parent 
standard altogether? So as Sweden combines formal gay marriage with 
adoption rights for same-sex couples, the dawn of quadruple parenting and 
polyamory looms. So much for [the] claim that formal gay marriage will 
reinforce the link between marriage and parenthood. 

Marriage and the family are under attack by homosexual activists and their 
allies, both in America and internationally. At a conference at the University of 
London called “Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage: A Conference on 
National European and International Law,” one of the main themes of 
discussion was whether marriage should exist at all. The attendees laid out 
strategies to circumvent each nation's democratic process via the judicial 
system to force their governments to sanction and accept same-sex marriage. 
There was also discussion about ultimately abolishing marriage so adults could 
be free to pursue any sexual relationship they want with no legal restrictions 
whatsoever. 

Parts of Europe have already proceeded well down the road to the abolition 
of marriage. Same-sex marriage is already legal in the Netherlands, and many 
other European countries have some sort of formal recognition of same-sex 
couples. In January 2003, Belgium joined the Netherlands to officially recognize 
same-sex marriages. In April 2004, Spain's new socialist government 
announced that it also plans to legalize homosexual “marriages.” 

In Norway, the nation's finance minister, Per-Kristian Foss, “married” his 
homosexual partner via a “partnership,” which means that they have “almost 
the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples” but not the title. 

In Germany, a similar partnership law was passed. The first lesbian couple 
to take advantage of the law, Angelika and Gudrun Pannier, dressed themselves 
in black tuxedos and white bow ties. They exchanged rings and ended their 
ceremony with a kiss. Angelika said, “It is a great honor to be Germany's first 
lesbian couple to have a legal partnership. It is very exciting. It is also very 
important to have my family beside us on this great step for civil and human 
rights.... There is still a lot more to do, but it is the first step.” 

Finally, Europe's top court recently ruled that all laws that do not recognize 
transsexual marriages are in violation of European law. The court's decision 
applies to all members of the European Union. 

These steps are just a precursor to the wholesale destruction of marriage. 
Domestic-partner polices and partnerships eventually weaken the institution of 
marriage for heterosexuals. In 1999, David Frum wrote vividly about how “civil 
solidarity pacts” had under-mined marriage in France. His words have chilling 
repercussions for America as we start to head down the same path: 



78 



[France created] a new legal status for homosexuals, analogous to 
marriage, but not exactly the same, called a “civil solidarity pact.” Couples 
linked in civil solidarity pacts would file joint tax returns, receive all the 
welfare and employment benefits of spouses, and enjoy the inheritance 
rights of husbands and wives.. ..To qualify for all of these advantages, a 
couple would need only to appear before a court clerk and sign on the 
dotted line. Either partner could end the pact by providing three months' 
notice in writing. ... 

Such pacts are obviously very convenient things, and it rapidly became 
evident that one way to mitigate political opposition to them was to make 
them available to just about everybody. After two years of haggling, the 
benefits of the pacts have been extended to cohabitating heterosexual 
couples, to widowed sisters living together, even to priests and their 
housekeepers. The French have crafted a grand new alternative to marriage, 
one that offers almost all of marriage's legal benefits and imposes many 
fewer of its legal obligations. Given French society's already growing 
distaste for the institution of marriage (about a million French heterosexual 
couples live together unwed), there is every reason to expect the new pact 
gradually to crowd out and replace marriage. It's a familiar story in the 
history of the evolution of law. Once upon a time, a contract became a 
contract only if it was sealed with wax in an elaborate ceremony. Then 
courts began to recognize less formal written and oral contracts as nearly 
equally binding, and soon the old form disappeared. 

In this case, however, the disappearance of the old form imposes 
consequences on innocent third parties: children. Already, 40 percent of 
France's children are bom outside marriage. The cohabitating couples who 
have these children may imagine that they are providing their children a 
home just as stable as that provided by marriage, but they are deluding 
themselves. In France, as everywhere else, the average cohabitational 
relationship lasts about five years. Apologists for cohabitation praise it as a 
less burdensome alternative to marriage; the tmth is that it is a near-certain 
prelude to fatherlessness. 

What has all of this to do with gay marriage? Everything. The argument 
over gay marriage is only incidentally and secondarily an argument over 
gays. What it is first and fundamentally is an argument over marriage. 
Unless a government is sufficiently powerful and disdainful of religion to 
cmsh the objections of the local churches — and few governments are — gay 
marriage will turn out in practice to mean the creation of an alternative 
form of legal coupling that will be available to homosexuals and 
heterosexuals alike. Gay marriage, as the French are vividly demonstrating, 
does not extend marital rights; it abolishes marriage and puts a new, 
flimsier institution in its place. 

The gay marriage argument is only the latest round in an argument 
over marriage and the family that began some 35 years ago. It pits 
defenders of marriage against those who condemn it as stultifying and 
oppressive. It pits the wishes of adults against the needs of children, the 



79 



urgings of the self against the obligations of family. As such, the argument 
is a much more evenly matched battle than a gay-straight fight would ever 
be. The battle has been lost in France and Scandinavia. It is well on the 
way to being lost in Britain and Canada. And it is very much in danger of 
being lost in the United States. 

Radical homosexual activists recognize that domestic -partner policies, civil 
unions, and so forth will eventually destroy the institution of male-female 
marriage. Chris Crain, writing in the homosexual newspaper the New York Blade, 
acknowledged this: “In the English-speaking world, the faux marriages have 
been called ‘domestic partnerships.’ In France, they're called Pacte civil de 
solidarite, or PACS....The effect on ‘traditional marriage’ has been dramatic. In 
France, where PACS first became available in 1999, some 14,000 couples signed 
up the first year, and almost half of them heterosexual.. ..Back in the States, 
many heterosexual couples are also choosing domestic partnership [DP] over 
marriage for many of the same reasons.” 



For the children, it makes no difference whether their parents are married or not. Traditional 
family values are not important to us anymore. They are something we do research on, like a 

fossil. 

— Ebba Witt-Brattstroem, Stockholm University professor of comparative literature 



France is not the only country that has seen this trend. In 1970, less than 5 
percent of live births were outside of marriage. When the first court challenge 
to traditional marriage occurred there, the rate was approximately 12 percent. 
In 1991, when samesex couples were allowed to symbolically “register” as 
“married” couples, the rate was still approximately the same. Then rates started 
to skyrocket. In 1997, Dutch same-sex couples were allowed to officially 
“register” with the state. At that point, approximately 18 percent of all births 
were to unwed couples. Three years later, same-sex “marriage” was legalized, 
and the rate had risen to approximately 25 percent. In the three years after the 
legalization of same-sex marriage, the rate increased from approximately 25 
percent to 31 percent. There is a trend happening here. 

Syndicated columnist Suzanne Fields asked the rhetorical question, “Will 
heterosexuals consider civil unions, too? It's difficult enough for the confirmed 
bachelor to commit to a woman already. Might he seek a lesser commitment as 
something desirable, avoiding the expensive divorce courts where half the 
marriages end?” 

Gene Edward Veith, who writes for World magazine, summed up the 
consequences for American society if marriage continues to be redefined and 
devalued: 



Under the emerging framework, there will be no difference between a 
married couple, a homosexual couple, or a couple in a temporary sexual 
relationship. As many advocates are putting it, “What difference does it 
make to the government or an employer whom you are having sex with?” 



80 



This sort of reductionism — a spouse is nothing more than a sex 
partner, so a sex partner is the same as a spouse — misses the point of what 
marriage is and what its role in society amounts to. ...So far, governments 
are resisting same-sex marriages. But instead, marriage is being defined 
down. As marriage becomes unnecessary — not just for job benefits but for 
adopting children, inheriting property, and being socially acceptable — the 
whole nation will be “living in sin.” 

Radical homosexual activists readily acknowledge that the redefinition of 
marriage is just a tool in their greater agenda to reorder society. While they will 
not admit it, children are just pawns to be used as they strive for total 
acceptance of their behavior. Consider this quote from Evan Wolfson, former 
president of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a leading lobbying 
and legal action group for homosexual marriage: “We can win the freedom to 
many.. ..We can seize the terms of the debate, tell our diverse stories, engage 
the non-gay persuadable public, enlist allies, work the courts and the 
legislatures in several states, and achieve a legal breakthrough within five years. 
I'm talking about not just any legal breakthrough but an actual change in the 
law of at least one state, ending discrimination in civil marriage and permitting 
same-sex couples to lawfully wed. This won't just be a change in the law either; it 
will be a change in society. For if we do it right, the struggle to win the freedom to 
marry will bring much more along the way” [emphasis added]. 

George W. Dent Jr., writing in The Journal of Law and Politics, writes that 
once same-sex marriage is affirmed, then other forms of “marriage” will quickly 
be affirmed as well, such as polygamy, endogamy (the marriage of blood 
relatives), bestiality, and child marriage. In fact, the policy guide of the 
American Civil Liberties Union calls for the legalization of polygamy, stating, 
“The ACLU believes that criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the 
practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of 
expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal 
relationships among consenting adults.” 

Acting in lock-step with homosexual activists, the New York Times, St. Louis 
Post-Dispatch, and Boston Globe recently agreed to add announcements of same- 
sex “unions” to their wedding announcement page. According to the Gay and 
Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), more than 135 papers now run 
such announcements. 

Once marriage is redefined for same-sex partners, it opens the Pandora's 
box to be redefined for any assortment of individuals. After all, if two men or 
two women have the right to be married, why not two men and three women, 
or two men, one woman, and a dog and a chimpanzee? 

Redefining Monogamy 

The argument to redefine monogamy is already being advanced by Marvin 
Ellison, a so-called “gay theologian” at the United Church of Christ's Bangor 
(Maine) Seminary. Ellison, an ordained PCUSA pastor, states that threesomes 
and foursomes should be considered for “marriage,” as well as bisexuals. In 



81 



fact, he ventures that perhaps marriage should be abolished all together (which 
we will see later is the ultimate goal of radical homosexual activists). 

Ellison, who was married to a woman but then left her for a homosexual 
partner because in his words his marriage was not “user-friendly,” says, “How 
exactly does the number of partners affect the moral quality of a relationship? 
Could it be that limiting intimate partnerships to only two people at a time is no 
guarantee of avoiding exploitation?” He adds that it is “troubling” that ethicists 
would see “marriage is a necessary social control mechanism to tame men's 
sexuality.” 

One of the first recipients of a same-sex “marriage” license in 
Massachusetts, Joseph Yarbrough openly proclaimed his “open marriage,” 
saying, “I think it's possible to love more than one person and have more than 
one partner, not in the polygamist sense. In our case it is, we have, an open 
marriage.” 

University of Chicago law professor Elizabeth Emens has stated that our 
country should “rethink” its opposition to multiple sex partners as equal to 
marriage. In her book, Monogamy's Law: Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous 
Existence, she states that resistance to polyamory (loving more than one person 
in a multiple person group) “may merely be an artifact of historical associations 
with patriarchal polygyny...” She adds that we should rewrite our marriage laws 
dealing with adultery to permit consensual extra-marital relationships. Emens 
has done pro bono work for the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task 
Force. 

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that polyamorists are already jumping 
on the same-sex “marriage” bandwagon to push for marital rights of their own. 
“Polyamory is never having to say you've broken up,” said Sally Amsbury, who 
shares her sex life with her husband and what she called her two “significant 
others.” Amsbury added she is bisexual, her husband is heterosexual, and her 
two “significant others” are bisexual. One of her “significant others” lives in 
West Hollywood with his boyfriend, and the other, named Conly, lives in Santa 
Rosa, California. “I wear a wedding ring for my husband and a bracelet for 
Conly,” she explained. 

Jasmine Wallace, president of Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory 
Awareness, added, “Polyamory is not an alternative to monogamy. It's an 
alternative to cheating. For some of us, monogamy doesn't work, and cheating 
was just abhorrent to me.” 

In Utah, a civil rights attorney has filed a lawsuit challenging the state's ban 
on polygamy. The ACLU's Utah executive director said that the state would 
“have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to 
society.. .the model of the nuclear family as we know it in the immediate past is 
unique, and may not be necessarily the best model. Maybe it's time to have this 
discussion.” 

The polygamists' attorney added, “It doesn't bother anyone, (and with) no 
compelling state interest in what you do in your own home with consenting 



82 



adults, you should be allowed do so (engage in polygamy).” 

These examples show one place homosexual activists and their allies want 
to go with the redefinition of monogamy. The concept of marriage for many 
homosexuals is radically different from what God designed and what many 
Americans have held as the commonly held view of how one is to conduct 
oneself in a marital relationship. Lesbian writer Camille Paglia, hardly a friend of 
those who hold biblical values, wrote the following about monogamy and same- 
sex marriage: “After a period of optimism about the long-range potential of gay 
men's one-on-one relationships, gay magazines are starting to acknowledge the 
more relaxed standards operating here, with recent articles celebrating the 
bigger bang of sex with strangers or proposing ‘monogamy without fidelity’ — the 
latest Orwellian formulation to excuse having your cake and eating it too.” 

Openly homosexual author Andrew Sullivan has admitted that most 
homosexuals' “understanding of the sexual commitment in a marriage is 
considerably broader that what nearly all heterosexual couples would 
tolerate.” He added that homosexuals have a “need for extramarital outlets” 
and therefore same-sex marriage will make adultery more acceptable for all 
married couples. So every heterosexual husband who has ever been tempted 
to stray can argue, based on this logic, that he was just practicing “monogamy 
without fidelity” and meeting his “need for extramarital outlets” and therefore 
did not violate his marriage vows when he committed adultery. 

In a study done by researchers at the University of Vermont (funded by the 
pro-homosexual Gill Foundation), this redefinition of marriage comes into 
sharper focus. In the study, conducted by UVM psychologists Dr. Esther D. 
Rothbaum and Dr. Sondra E. Solomon, of married heterosexual couples, 
homosexual couples who had entered into a “civil union,” and homosexual 
couples that had not entered into such a union, they found the following: While 
79 percent of married heterosexual felt that non-monogamy was wrong, only 34 
percent of homosexual men not in civil unions and 50 percent in civil unions 
thought it was wrong to engage in non-monogamous sexual behavior. More than 
50 percent of civil union couples said that they entered into the union to make 
a political statement. One other interesting note: lesbians in the study made 
$15,000 more than married heterosexual women in the workforce. 

In an ADF-funded case over child custody between a Christian heterosexual 
mother and her former spouse, an activist homosexual and his partner, the 
homosexual testified that he was “monogamous.” On cross-examination he 
explained this as meaning that he and his partner were committed and faithful 
to each other, but Thursday night was “date night” when they would go to 
locations such as a bar and seek out a casual sex partner for that one evening, 
one time. 

As one observer of the homosexual movement has warned, “Gay activists 
are sexual Marxists. Legitimizing same-sex unions is a warm-up act. Ultimately 
they want to eliminate any barriers, any signposts, that limit or channel the 
exercise of human sexuality.” 

It actually seems that the more radical the homosexual activist, the more 



83 



blatantly honest they are of their goals. They do not necessarily want marriage 
so that they can take advantage of its benefits. They want marriage so they can 
take a wrecking ball to the institution itself. 

For example, homosexual activist William Eskridge says that he hopes gay 
marriage “will dethrone the traditional family based on blood relationships in 
favor of families we choose.” Michelangelo Signorile has told activists “to 
fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine 
the institution of marriage completely.. .to debunk a myth and radically alter an 
archaic institution.... The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can 
undertake. ..is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely.” This means 
marriage will be no better than anonymous sodomy in a bathhouse. 



The first bond of society is marriage. 
— Cicero 



Lesbian activist Barbara Cox wrote, “Yes, we must be aware of the 
oppressive history that weddings symbolize. We must work to ensure that we do 
not simply accept whole cloth an institution that symbolizes the loss and harm 
felt by women. But I find it difficult to understand how two lesbians, standing 
together openly and proudly, can be seen as accepting that institution? What is 
more anti-patriarchal and rejecting of an institution that carries the patriarchal 
power imbalance into most households than clearly stating that women can 
commit to one another with no man in sight? With no claim of dominion or 
control, but instead equality and respect. I understand the fears of those who 
condemn us for our weddings, but I believe they fail to look beyond the symbol 
and cannot see the radical claim we are making.” 

In his excellent article, “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia,” Stanley Kurtz 
talks about the observations of Danish homosexual social theorist Henning Bech 
and Norwegian sociologist Rune Halvorsen. According to Kurtz, “Bech, perhaps 
Scandinavia's most prominent gay thinker, dismisses as an ‘implausible’ claim 
that gay marriage promotes monogamy. He treats the ‘conservative case’ (that 
same-sex ‘marriage’ will bring stability and monogamy to homosexual 
relationships) as something that served chiefly tactical purposes during a 
difficult political debate. According to Halvorsen, many of Norway's gays 
imposed self-censorship during the marriage debate, so as to hide their 
opposition to marriage itself. The goal of the gay marriage movements in both 
Norway and Denmark, say Halvorsen and Bech, was not marriage but social 
approval for homosexuality.” 

In fact, as homosexual couples staged rallies in support of samesex 
“marriage,” more radical homosexual activists expressed disgust at the actions 
of their colleagues. They would rather see marriage abolished all together. 
James Wagner, a longtime gay activist, said, “Marriage is a way that government 
exerts social control. I'm uncomfortable supporting it. I'm interested in 
changing society, not assimilation.” Another homosexual activist, named 



84 



William Dobbs, added, “Our movement has become about lusting for weddings 
and lavender picket fences. It's so embarrassing. I feel like turning in my gay 
card.” 

Patrick Moore, another homosexual writer, said: “Marriage is a problematic 
goal in terms of gay sexuality... the monogamous ideal enshrined in marriage is a 
challenge regardless of one's sexual orientation.. ..Careful polling would help 
answer the question of whether marriage is even a widely shared goal within the 
gay community.. ..In redefining what it means to be gay in America, the gay 
community itself is on the verge of marginalizing those who refuse to conform 
to a system of heterosexual morality.” 

In New York State, Assemblywoman Deborah Glick (D-Manhattan) 
introduced legislation that would remove all references to marriage from the 
state Domestic Relations Law and turn all marriages into “civil unions.” Glick 
said that religious and civil unions could still be called “marriages” under her 
proposed legislation, but the word marriage would no longer have any legal 
standing. 

Despite these dissident voices in the homosexual activist movement, the 
majority of homosexual activists continue to march to the same drum of 
pushing for same-sex “marriage.” And once marriage and monogamy are 
redefined, they both become insignificant. It is the goal of radical homosexual 
activists to redefine both, and end up with a situation like parts of Europe 
where both marriage and the family have become meaningless. 

Not surprisingly, one of the main benefits that homosexual activists see in 
getting married is the chance to get a “clean divorce.” Jo Ann Citron, a Boston 
lawyer, said, “The single most important thing you get with marriage is divorce, 
a predictable process by which property is divided, debt is apportioned, and 
arrangements are made for custody and visitation of children.” 

Meanwhile much of the Church of Jesus Christ remains either confused or 
apathetic. According to an April 2004 poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner 
Research, Inc., of Washington, D.C., 52 percent of evangelicals oppose a federal 
marriage amendment that would define marriage to be between one man and 
one woman. They said that the matter of same-sex “marriage” should be left 
up to the states despite the fact that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. 
Constitution requires that states honor marriages performed in other states, 
unless the state has passed a Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). For example, if 
you were married in Arizona, you are also legally married in Colorado if you 
move there and are entitled to the same rights married couples enjoy in 
Colorado. DOMAs prevent homosexuals from exporting samesex marriages (if 
legalized) created in one state to other states. 

But homosexual activists know if a Federal Marriage Amendment is passed, 
the rest of their agenda is in trouble. Cheryl Jacques, the new head of the 
Human Rights Campaign, said, “If the Constitution is changed, then every arena 
where we're making progress — from the courts to corporate America — is shut 
down.” 

Legal Attacks on Marriage 



85 



ADF trained attorneys have supplied legal assistance related to several state 
legislatures drafting and passing DOMAs. When homosexual activists make their 
claim that DOMAs are unnecessary, they are preying on people's ignorance of 
this constitutional provision. They will say things like “No one is trying to push 
for same-sex marriage in Ohio.” But they know that once one state recognizes 
same-sex marriage, a same-sex couple can get married in that state and then can 
return to their home state. The home state will be forced to recognize the 
couple's union because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. DOMAs are designed 
to prevent states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages from other 
states or those entered into in a foreign nation. This is important because of 
Holland's and Belgium's legalization of same-sex marriage. 

Though there are many legal battles to redefine marriage, Christians have 
been able, by God's grace, to stymie many of the efforts. Here are just a few 
examples: 

Alaska 

When homosexual activists pushed for same-sex marriage in our forty-ninth 
state, ADF played a proactive role to stop their efforts. We brought together key 
lawyers and academics to formulate arguments to counter the demands put 
forth by the homosexual activist community. When the Anchorage Superior 
Court in Alaska handed down a decision in favor of same-sex marriage on 
February 28, 1998, an ADF trained and funded attorney, Kevin Clarkson, 
immediately filed on behalf of the Alaska Senate an appeal to the Alaska 
Supreme Court. Through his tireless efforts, Kevin and other family advocates 
were able to assist in preparing and supporting adoption of the legal language 
for an amendment barring same-sex marriage through the state's legislature. 
They then sued the lieutenant governor, who had tried to create ballot 
obstacles, and defeated the effort to keep the amendment off the Alaskan ballot 
(the ACLU and homosexual groups were unsuccessful in their lawsuits to get the 
amendment removed from the ballot). After a resounding 2-1 victory at the 
ballot box, ADF was heavily involved in post-election efforts to defeat legal 
challenges with which the homosexual activists and their allies attempted to 
thwart the will of the people. 

After the Alaska vote, then ACLU executive director Ira Glasser showed his 
own personal contempt for the “will of the people” when it comes to objections 
to the homosexual agenda. He stated, “Today's results prove that certain 
fundamental issues should not be left up to majority vote.” 

* Sean Haley, executive director of the Boston chapter of GLSEN, has also 
added: “[Same-sex ‘marriage’] is a tremendously sensitive issue. This is an area 
around civil rights and human rights that may not be appropriate for a majority 
vote.” See Robert Bluey “Massachusetts Court Set to Hear Homosexual Marriage 
Case,” CNSNews.com, February 13, 2003. 

Arizona 



86 



ADF represented a state representative in Arizona courts against an attempt 
by two homosexual men to have the state's DOMA declared unconstitutional. 
After a lower court ruling affirming the DOMA law, the two men appealed to the 
Supreme Court, which without comment, rejected their appeal. 

Hawaii 

ADF funded last-minute legal work before the November 1998 election to 
help defend traditional marriage in the Aloha State. After the ballot result 
allowing legislation in favor of traditional marriage, ADF played a key role in 
funding the postelection litigation to ensure that a “win remained a win” for 
those who believe in the traditional role of marriage between one man and one 
woman. 

Indiana 

Indiana law recognizes that marriage is only to be between one man and 
one woman. However, three same-sex couples who had obtained Vermont “civil 
unions” had come back to the state and demanded a marriage license. 

Judge S. K. Reid of the Marion Superior Court Civil Division ruled that 
same-sex couples are biologically and legally different from one man-one 
woman unions and, therefore, the court cannot allow them to “marry.” 

The judge's decision affirmed traditional marriage by stating that: 

• Traditional marriage between one man and one woman “promotes the state's 
interest in encouraging procreation to occur in a context where both biological 
parents are present to raise the child.. ..Same-sex couples are not similarly situated 
with opposite-sex couples who cannot reproduce because samesex couples can 
never reproduce on their own as a categorical matter.” 

• Maintaining marriage between one man and one woman “vindicates the 
related interest in promoting the traditional family as the basic living unit of a free 
society.” 

• The court said that because of “the history of traditional marriage as a critical 
component of Western Civilization, it is rational for the [ Indiana ] General 
Assembly to recognize opposite-sex marriage in order to promote traditional 
families as the bedrock of society. Same-sex marriage has not played a similar 
historical role.” 

ADF staff attorney Glen Lavy, working with ADF's allied attorneys, provided 
important assistance on this case. 

Vermont 

While we cannot claim total victory in Vermont, many believe ADF's 
support was instrumental in keeping the Vermont Supreme Court from forcing 



87 



same-sex marriage on the people of that state. ADF assembled the team writing 
the legal briefs and helped to fund appropriate private assistance in support of 
the state attorney general as he prepared the state's brief. We believe that 
without such assistance, the Vermont Supreme Court, or later the legislature, 
could have mandated the legalization of full-blown same-sex marriage. While we 
are far from pleased with the compromise the court reached — of ordering the 
legislature to adopt what became civil unions — the outcome could have been 
much worse without ADF's intervention. 

Interestingly, as our lawyers predicted, most of the Vermont civil unions 
have not been for Vermont residents, but for out-of-state homosexual couples, 
who then hope to go back to their own states and try to force them to recognize 
their civil unions. As of October 13, 2002, there have been 4,371 civil unions, 
with the majority coming from outside of Vermont. Lesbians represent 66 
percent of all unions to date. Sixty-three percent of civil unions “partners” have 
graduated from college. 

New Jersey 

New Jersey, site of a 2003 challenge, does not have the protection of a 
DOMA. Homosexual activists have sued for marital rights in the state with the 
knowledge that the Supreme Court in that state is very sympathetic to so-called 
gay rights. (It is the same court that had ruled against the Boy Scouts.) 

Sally Goldfarb, a professor at Rutgers University, said, “New Jersey has a 
long tradition of willing to be forward-looking and progressive, and looking to 
the state constitution to recognize new rights. The fact that New Jersey family 
law already recognizes same-sex relations as legitimate in several areas lends 
support to the position that there is no justification for denying same-sex 
couples complete access to marriage.” 

Bill Duncan of the Marriage Law Project added, “There are a number of 
people who are very upset about what's going on [the legal push for same-sex 
marriage], but none of those people are on any of the courts in New Jersey.” 

Unfortunately, the legal battle is not going well beyond America's shores. 
In Australia, a couple had their marriage declared valid by a family court after 
one of the individuals, a female-to-male transsexual, was declared a man by the 
court. The judge in this case said there was no pervasive reason to assume for 
the purposes of marriage that “if a person is male or female at birth, the person 
must be male or female at the date of the marriage.” 

In October 2003, a lower court ruled in favor of traditional marriage, but 
the battle has just begun in New Jersey. 

* ADF was also successful in defending traditional marriage in Arizona when 
two homosexual men tried to use the U.S. Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas 
decision to legally impose same-sex marriage on the state. A lower court quickly 
ruled against them. 



88 



Massachusetts 



As mentioned earlier, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 
favor of same-sex marriage in the case of Goodridge v. Massachusetts Department 
of Health. The writing on the wall is now clear: we can now expect a series of 
legal challenges from homosexual activists in every state to force same-sex 
“marriage” on the American public. And sure enough, same-sex “marriage” 
battles started to be waged across America after the Massachusetts decision. 

One of the most outrageous aspects of this decision was the actions of 
Massachusetts State Supreme Court Chief Justice Margaret Mitchell. Mrs. 
Mitchell has been a friend of homosexual advocacy groups for quite some time. 
In 1999, she delivered the keynote speech (as an associate justice) to the 
Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association. In her speech, she cited the 
“growing body of gayfriendly international jurisprudence,” and infact, 
international law (from the Canadian province of Ontario) was cited in the 
majority opinion in favor of same-sex “marriage.” 



And turning marriage into a freeform institution is good for children? Calling any relationship 
a marriage makes marriage less attractive by making it exclusive. We want men and women 
to marry because — after our 30-year experiment with single parenting — we understand that 
children need both a mother and a father. Even Heather with her ‘two mommies’ needs to 
know this is not the family society sanctions. The it-hurts-the-children argument is a smoke 
screen. Activists want their lifestyle validated regardless of the social costs. 

— Don Feder, syndicated columnist 



It is interesting to note that liberal groups have demanded that U.S. 
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recuse himself from numerous High Court 
cases because of speaking engagements he has done for conservative groups, 
but they are strangely silent when liberal justices address or socialize with 
homosexual advocacy groups. 

The Election of 2004 

November 2, 2004, was a great day for traditional marriage in America. In 
eleven states, citizens went to the polls to vote overwhelmingly to adopt state 
constitutional amendments that define marriage as between one man and one 
woman.0 In all eleven states, the amendments passed, with margins of victory 
ranging from 86 percent to 57 percent. ADF provided legal support in four 
states (Arkansas, Georgia, Ohio, and Oklahoma) to help stop homosexual 
activists and their allies from keeping these amendments off the ballot. Just 
weeks earlier, voters in two other states, Missouri and Louisiana (after ADF 
helped win court battles to keep the amendments on the ballot), voted by large 
margins for marriage. Advocates of homo-sexual behavior didn't want 
Americans to vote on the issue, and once they do, the radicals want to make 
their votes meaningless. ADF has been called upon to defend challenges to the 



89 



amendments in several states. 

* The states were Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, North 
Dakota, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Utah. 

Many secular commentators said that the same-sex “marriage” issue was 
pivotal in providing the margin of victory for President Bush in Ohio — the state 
that ended up deciding the presidential election. Many of these victories came 
despite the tremendous amount of resources spent by homosexual activists and 
their allies to defeat these amendments. In Kentucky, homosexual activists 
outspent promarriage groups by almost $300,000 and still lost by a 4-1 
margin. In Missouri, those who advocate homosexual behavior had outspent 
pro-marriage forces by a margin of nearly 40-1, and still lost 71 to 29 percent. 

Despite these incredible results, it is critical that those who believe in 
marriage as between one man and one woman stay engaged in the battle. Those 
who seek to redefine marriage are not going to give up and go away. They are 
already plotting strategies to “frame their issue” so it connects with “Middle 
America. m In addition, they will continue to file lawsuits challenging the will 
of the people, such as they did in Louisiana and Georgia almost immediately 
after the amendments were passed in those states. Americans who believe in 
the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman will need to remain 
vigilant and involved in the months and years ahead, as those who advocate 
same-sex “marriage” will not be deterred in their efforts to reshape the 
American family. 

Beyond Our Shores 

In England, it was reported that three members of the House of Lords had 
given permission to a male-to-female transsexual to appeal a court decision that 
had ruled that his marriage to a man twenty-one years ago was not valid. The 
Scotsman reported that Elizabeth Ballinger had taken his case to the House of 
Lords after his marriage had been ruled void by lower courts. Those courts had 
ruled that the terms “male” and “female,” which are assigned at birth, could not 
be altered. Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, head of England's Family Division, said 
that the case “highlighted a human problem” and the court was “very much 
aware of the plight of those who, like the appellant, are locked into the medical 
condition of transsexualism.” 

In Ontario, Canada, the Superior Court ruled that prohibiting homosexual 
couples from marrying violated the province's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 
Much like what happened in Vermont, the court suspended the decision for two 
years for Parliament to “remedy” the situation. Ontario Premier Ernie Eves 
clearly sided with homosexual activists when he said, “If two people decide that 
they want to be in a union, why would I interfere with that?” Ontario's 
Commissioner of Human Rights has subsequently called for measures to force 
all private schools in the province to stop teaching that marriage is reserved for 
a man and a woman. 

In the Canadian province of Quebec, legislation was passed that created a 



90 



civil union registry for same-sex and opposite-sex couples. The new law extends 
most marital benefits to unmarried couples and allows an easy withdrawal from 
the relationship, further cheapening marriage (only a notarized signature is 
needed). 

To illustrate the instability of same-sex “marriages,” two lesbians filed for 
“divorce” less than a year after the Ontario court granted the “right” to same-sex 
“marriage.” The couple “separated” just five days after their “marriage.” Ontario 
Premier Dalton McGuinty said, “We certainly support same-sex marriages and 
logically what flows from that are divorces.” 

All of this is empowering homosexual activists in the U.S. Evan Wolfson 
had this to say about Canada and its effect on our country: “The future is clearly 
the Canadian way. The United States cannot lag behind its major trading 
partner, the nation with the longest common border, its closest internationally. 
With the increasing trade and travel between the two nations, how can we 
avoid going the same direction?” 

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund has already attempted to force 
corporations in the United States to recognize same-sex “marriages” in Canada. 
When a retired Prudential Financial employee “married” her lesbian partner in 
Canada, Lambda challenged Prudential's decision not to extend medical benefits 
it provides to other retired employees to the “spouse.” Lambda has also written 
a guide called “We Got Married in Canada, What's Next?” to equip same-sex 
“couples” to challenge corporations and local and state governments to 
recognize their “unions.” 

The Pretense of Tolerance Is Over 

In the days leading up to World War II, Winston Churchill, in a speech to 
the Royal Academy, said, “No large organization can long continue without a 
strong element of authority and respect for authority.” 

On Valentine's Day weekend 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, in 
open defiance of the rule of law, ordered his county clerk to issue “marriage” 
licenses to same-sex couples despite the state law Proposition 22, passed by the 
voters in 2000, that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. 
Eventually, nearly four thousand same-sex “couples” were issued “marriage” 
licenses and were “married” by government officials. 

If taken to its logical conclusion, this open contempt for authority and the 
rule of law could lead to social anarchy where no laws are worth the paper they 
are printed on. The words of Churchill would become prophetically real for 
America. 

ADF and its allies immediately sprung into action to stop the unlawful 
actions of Mayor Newsom's county clerk. ADF attorneys were literally shuttling 
back and forth to San Francisco on an almost daily basis, as well as spending 
late night after late night as other open challenges to marriage — spurred on by 
Mayor Newsom's actions — started to rear their heads in Oregon, Washington, 
New Mexico, and North Carolina — to name only a few of the many states where 



91 



homosexual activists went on a full-court press for same-sex “marriage. ”9 After 
a series of frustrating setbacks in the courtrooms of San Francisco, ADF filed a 
direct action in the California State Supreme Court, on behalf of California 
taxpayers, and the High Court eventually halted — in a 7-0 vote — the issuance of 
the invalid licenses. They set a two-hour oral argument to determine the legal 
validity of the “licenses” on May 25, 2004. 

* Multnomah County, in Oregon, issued more than three thousand invalid 
marriage licenses until they were halted in an ADF legal action on April 20, 
2004. 

On that day, ADF senior counsel Jordan Lorence appeared before the 
California State Supreme Court to defend state law and argue that the so-called 
“licenses” be declared invalid. Jordan noted that if an elected official can defy 
or ignore one law, then all other laws are in jeopardy. Within thirty seconds of 
her opening statement, opposing counsel Therese Stewart (a lesbian), the 
deputy city attorney for the city and county of San Francisco, found herself 
grilled by Chief Justice Ronald George on this very point. Even a liberal court in 
a liberal state was not going to buy the argument that an elected official can 
openly defy the law. 

On August 12, 2004, the California Supreme Court agreed with Jordan's 
arguments, and in a 7-0 decision ruled that the mayor of San Francisco had 
overstepped his authority when he directed the city and county clerk to issue 
the “marriage” licenses. In addition, the court, in a 5-2 decision, declared the 
licenses that had been issued to be invalid because the mayor had no authority 
to issue them. 

According to Newsom, his “marriage” decision was made on the spur of the 
moment when he heard President Bush express support for the Federal Marriage 
Amendment during his annual State of the Union address. As events in San 
Francisco continued to unfold, word got out that Mayor Newsom's illegal 
actions were staged for political gain, well before the president's address even 
occurred. The San Francisco Chronicle reported, “From the minute Newsom lifted 
the curtain with his call for gay marriage licenses, to his cross-continental 
debate with President Bush, Team Newsom has done its best to manage the 
image coming out of City Hall.. ..From day one, the ‘story’ was about the gay 
couple next door — and not the mayor as gay-rights leader.. ..The Newsom people 
made sure that when the mayor came out swinging against Bush's backing for a 
constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, he was standing in front 
of an American flag. The overall goal was to make Newsom appear the earnest 
young politico who — whether you agreed with him or not — was willing to take 
the heat for doing something he believed in.. ..‘What you saw this week,’ said 
former Newsom campaign manager Eric Jaye, ‘was the catalyst for the entire 
Newsom operation from day one — control.’” 

Writing for National Review, Stanley Kurtz added, 

Defiance of the law is rapidly becoming the leitmotif of the gay 
marriage movement... it's foolish to put faith in laws that supposedly 
prevent gay marriage in Massachusetts from spilling over into other states. 



92 



When it comes to same-sex marriage, it barely matters how the law is 
written. Again and again, gay marriage advocates have shown themselves 
eager to disobey any law that would prevent the spread of gay marriage 
from state to state. ...It took only a single day of legal gay marriage to reveal 
the worthlessness of assurances about this experiment's confinement to 
Massachusetts. ...Even though same-sex marriage is legal in no other state, 
[Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas] Reilly would only definitively 
rule out marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Reilly was vague 
about whether marriages would be denied to residents of other states. 

Next came the plans for civil disobedience. ...Town clerks in 
Provincetown, Worcester, and several other Massachusetts cities 
announced they would issue marriage licenses to out-of-state couples. Then 
district attorneys in several localities said they would not prosecute clerks 
who violated the law.. ..The mayor of Sommerville explicitly welcomed out- 
of-state couples. More than a third of applications in Provincetown were 
from out-of-state couples. Some made it clear on their applications that 
they had no intention of moving to Massachusetts. ...Events have made it 
clear that on the question of same-sex marriage, it's going to be all or 
nothing. Either we are going to have same-sex marriage everywhere, or we 
are going to have a Federal Marriage Amendment.” 



I don't think lesbian, gay, bi, or trans marriage, or whatever you want to call it, is that far 
off. I sure didn't think I'd see it in my lifetime. ..This is cutting edge stuff. If we can do this 
in California, it's going to sweep across this country, and that's why all the national 
organizations are looking to California to see how soon we can produce this [civil unions], 
because it's going to move like wildfire. 

— -Jean Harris, executive director of California Alliance for Pride and Equality 



Other homosexuals were upset that their colleagues had pushed the 
envelope prematurely; in particular, activists and their allies started to ignore 
the rule of law in San Francisco, Oregon, and other places — creating a public 
backlash against same-sex “marriage.” Bruce Carroll, writing in the homosexual 
newspaper The Washington Blade, wrote, “The backlash over gay 
marriage... doesn't come as a surprise to me. ...Since two-thirds of Americans 
oppose gay marriage, and the same percentage support legal protections for 
gays in the workplace, then why, I asked, are the radical gay groups forcing 
marriage down the throats of America at this time?. ..it wasn't the ‘religious 
right’ or President Bush who started this round in the culture war. It was us. ..we 
get Rosie O'Donnell who says she's getting married in front of TV cameras 
merely because President Bush says he's opposed to it. Well, that's one sure way 
for opponents to question the sincerity of the true commitment to gay marriage, 
isn't it?” 

John Derbyshire, writing for National Review Online, added, “Opinion 
pollsters only get a bare majority of respondents favoring legal homosexual 
relationships, never mind marriages. Last July (2003), for example, in a 
CNN/L/SA Today/Gallup poll... the numbers broke 48-46 on the statement: 



93 



‘homosexual relations between consenting adults should or should not be 
legal.’” 

Still, homosexual activists push for same-sex “marriage,” despite 
documented public opposition to it. It is more evidence that for many 
homosexual activists the pretense of “tolerance” is over. Radical homosexual 
activists and their allies are determined to ignore the will of the people and 
impose same-sex “marriage” on the American public — either through the 
judiciary or through the open defiance of law. 

These activists are banking on an eventual wearing-down (as discussed in 
chap. 1) of the American public. They will keep coming back and coming back 
until the public is worn down, and then will get what they want. Sheila Kuehl, 
an openly lesbian California state senator, says, “My analysis is that the closer 
we get to anything that looks to people like marriage, the more reluctant they 
are to jump on board. But that will change. And until then, we'll just keep 
moving step by step on the rights we've already won.” 

In the Best Interests of the Child? 

Besides marriage, radical homosexual activists have the family, and 
particularly innocent, vulnerable children in their sights as well. This has been 
accomplished by demanding the right to adopt children. They have presented 
their efforts as “being [in] the best interests of children,” but it is hardly that. 
As Don Feder said, “the best interests of the child” is a smoke screen for 
another way to have homosexual behavior blessed by the state. 

And that is exactly what is happening. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has 
ruled that homosexual partners have parenting rights over their partner's 
children. In a 5-2 decision, the court ruled that a woman had the right to seek 
shared custody of and visitation rights with a child who had been born to her 
former lesbian lover. The ruling gave a non-parent homosexual “partner” the 
same right as an actual parent to have child custody and visitation after the 
dissolution of their relationships. Stacy Sobel, executive director of the Center 
for Lesbian and Gay Rights, said about the decision, “Our courts should 
recognize the significant role of gay and lesbian nonbiological parents raising 
children today.... The court made the right decision to support the child's best 
interests in this case by allowing the child the opportunity to continue a 
relationship with both parents.” 

In Florida, lesbian comedienne and talk show host Rosie O'Donnell lobbied 
for the overturning of a state law banning homosexual adoption. The cover of 
Rosie magazine proudly proclaimed, “The anti-gay law that made Rosie speak 
out for children,” as though she was Saint Rosie coming to rescue innocent 
children from slaughter. An article in the magazine dealt with two homosexual 
men who wanted to adopt children in Florida. O'Donnell's real motive? She 
wanted to spend some time in Florida and take her three adopted children with 
her from New York. And she got the all-too -willing media to go along, saying: “I 
called [Diane] Sawyer and said if you do an investigative piece on these two 
men, I would talk about my life and how it pertains to me.” 



94 



• In the days following her public “coming out,” the so-called Queen of Nice 
went on a rampage trashing everyone in her path. The publishers of Rosie 
magazine saw sales of the magazine plummet after O'Donnell's announcement 
but were afraid to pull the plug on the magazine in fear of Rosie screaming 
“homophobia.” Source: Richard Johnson with Paula Froelich and Chris Wilson, 
“Mag Suits Fear Rosie Revenge,” New York Post, August 12, 2002. 

O'Donnell's coming out and advocacy of homosexual adoption helped 
homosexual activists to move the ball several yards downfield in their quest not 
just for tolerance, but for acceptance and a total reordering of society as well. 
After her interview with Diane Sawyer, ABC News reported a new poll that 
showed that for the first time more Americans supported homosexual adoption 
than opposed it. 

But is this all in the best interests of the children? Well, according to the 
American Academy of Pediatrics, which has endorsed homosexual adoption, it 
is. However, many of the pro-homosexual conclusions have again been based 
on sloppy research and undocumented facts. 

In the book No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell You about SameSex 
Parenting, researchers Robert Lemer and Althea Nagai have refuted many of the 
so-called studies used to promote same-sex parenting. After analyzing forty-nine 
studies, they found: 

t Robert Lemer and Althea K. Nagai received their doctorate degrees from the 
University of Chicago in sociology and political science, respectively. They are 
currently partners in Lemer and Nagai Quantitative Consulting, a social-science 
research and consulting firm. 

• A majority of the studies examined (59 percent) failed to produce a testable 
hypothesis, therefore being unable to produce any sort of dependable 
conclusions. 

• Any form of academic research must have a “study group” and a 
“comparison group.” This means that one group must study children raised 
in homosexual homes (i.e., the study group) and children raised in 
heterosexual homes (i.e., the comparison group). Yet in the forty-nine 
studies examined, only one used a proper study/comparison group method. 
Lemer and Nagai wrote: “At an absolute minimum, a study of whether parent 
sexual identity affects child outcomes needs a study group and a comparison 
group. If an independent variable is the sexual orientation of the parent, 
there must be at least two groups of parents, homosexual and heterosexual. 
Otherwise it is impossible to draw any conclusions about the possible effects 
of parental sexual orientation... 21 studies (43 percent) had no heterosexual 
comparison group at all. This makes them scientifically invalid from the 
outset.” In fact, one study of thirty-seven clinical cases of children raised 
by transsexual and homosexual parents lacked even one heterosexual 
comparison group. Lemer and Nagai commented, “These 49 studies were 
conducted with control methods that are so inadequate that they cannot be 
relied upon for either scientific conclusions or public policy reforms./* 



95 



• The studies also had serious sample problems. According to Lemer and 
Nagai, “Publications and newsletters were also a major vehicle for recruiting 
homosexuals but not heterosexuals. Seventeen studies relied on gay-lesbian 
or feminist publications for the homosexual parent samples. In contrast, one 
heterosexual sample was obtained from an advertisement in a feminist 
newsletter (which would be sympathetic to the homosexual viewpoint) 
which is likely to minimize rather than maximize differences between 
homosexual and heterosexual respondents.” 

Anyone who has ever taken an undergraduate class on statistics or polling 
of public opinion learns about the principles of proper sampling and 
study/comparison groups in the first two weeks. No study that does not employ 
these methods has any academic credibility. Despite this, these studies are 
dragged out time and time again to promote same-sex parenting in the 
legislatures and the courts. 

In a column entitled “Homosexual Parenting Findings Based on Faulty 
Stories,” syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher challenges the assumptions and 
motives of advocates of homosexual adoption. In response to the American 
Academy of Pediatrics decision to endorse homosexual adoption, she wrote: 

Baby doctors of the world unite! The American Academy of Pediatrics 
has declared that same-sex parents are good for kids. ...Are pediatricians 
just doing their public health duty? Are they reporting results of careful 
scientific studies that compare, say, health outcomes for children in the 
four states that permit second-person adoptions with outcomes for 
children in the other 46 states? No, of course not. The real issue here is not 
the well-being of children, but the sexual liberties of adults. 

What does this remind one of? Nothing so much as the urgent claims 
of divorce advocates in the '70s that “studies show” children of divorce do 
fine. An enormous amount of damage was done before more careful 
research created a new scholarly consensus that in fact, marriage matters a 
great deal. 

Gallagher is right. Think back to the late 1960s and early 1970s when we 
were told that divorce was either beneficial for children or had little or no effect 
on them. Only twenty years later, in the groundbreaking studies done by Judith 
Wallerstein and others, did we find out the tragic results of our folly. We have 
now raised an entire generation of dysfunctional adults who have trouble 
committing to and honoring relationships because we as a nation embraced no- 
fault divorce. 

Robert Lemer, one of the authors of No Basis, made this parallel between 
homosexual parenting and the divorce movement of the '60s and '70s: 

When the divorce laws were liberalized (beginning during the late '60s, 
early '70s and extending through the next decade or so), it was claimed 
that scientific research showed that the children would not be harmed and 
therefore a high divorce rate would not be a problem but would free adults 
to self -actualize. 



96 



When the findings from technically proficient studies began to appear, 
however, it appeared that the earlier results, which were in fact very 
sketchy, were totally wrong. Divorce can and does cause a good deal of 
harm for children caught up in it. Although this finding is now widely 
accepted, the new conventional wisdom does not help the many children 
who suffered because their parents were told that divorce was perfectly 
okay. Damage occurred that was not necessary and would not have 
occurred except for the acceptance of wishful thinking disguised as social- 
science evidence. In fact, the issue had never been properly studied, 
especially when the earlier guesstimates and summaries are compared with 
today's rigorous studies. If we are not careful, the same results are likely to 
ensue. 

Adults seeking to change the family and traditional sex roles to suit their 
own desires are using innocent children again. To intellectual elites, 
homosexual activists, and their allies, children are guinea pigs in a social 
experiment, instead of individuals that need love, care, discipline, and 
nurturing. 

The no-fault divorce laws of the sixties and seventies left a trail of broken 
children. No-fault divorce did not mean “no harm.” Then there were the radical 
feminists who tried to convince us that girls and boys were basically the same — 
it was the environment that made boys aggressive and athletic and girls 
feminine and domestic. The result? Sexually confused children who grew up to 
be sexually confused adults. Now, almost thirty years later, study after study, as 
well as good old common sense, has confirmed what God knew right from the 
beginning: that there are biological differences between boys and girls. 
Obviously, we have not learned from our past mistakes. Social engineers and 
homosexual activists are using children as pawns again, just as those who 
promoted divorce and militant feminism, to push their own self-interests and 
agenda. 

Political leaders, prominent entertainers such as Rosie O'Donnell, and the 
medical establishment incessantly repeat the mantra that homosexual parenting 
is just another form of family and is in the best interests of the children. In April 
2002, a United Nations conference attempted to recognize families “in various 
forms” including cohabitating and homosexual couples. Maria Sophia Aguirre, 
population and development expert at Catholic University of America said that 
the change would form three different types of families: nuclear, extended, and 
“re-organized.” The last form would include homosexual couples. 

Former presidential candidate A1 Gore and his wife Tipper donated $50,000 
to the Human Rights Campaign to help its “FamilyNet” campaign promote 
homosexual adoption. Their book. Joined at the Heart: The Transformation of 
the American Family, prominently featured homosexual “families.” 

Dennis Prager probably put it best about the effect of these new families 
on children. He wrote: 

This past year, Los Angeles Family magazine asked me to write an 



97 



article making the case for the two-parent family. That a mainstream family 
magazine would commission such an article is quite a sign of the times. 
How has this happened? How has the nuclear family become controversial? 
It has happened because many groups and ideologies have a personal 
interest in denying that it is best for a child to be raised by, or even to start 
out life with, a father and a mother.... What do all these people and groups 
have in common? None of them is asking what is best for children. The 
rhetoric of rights (applied here to gays)... and of equality (applied here to 
gays and men-women) combined with a culture of not judging are all 
preoccupied with the adults involved, not the children. Compassion for 
children, a child's right to a mother and a father, their equality as human 
beings — these all get drowned in the sea of self-centeredness, moral 
confusion and misdirected compassion that denies them their right to a 
mom and a dad. 

In a later column, Prager would expand upon this argument: 

Of all the arguments against same-sex marriage, the most immediately 
compelling is that it hurts children. If children have the right to anything, it 
is to begin life with a mother and father.... Only same-sex marriage would 
legally ensure that children are deprived from birth of either a mother or a 
father. Why, then, doesn't a child's right to begin life with a mother and 
father have any impact on the millions of people who either advocate 
same-sex marriage or can't make up their minds on the issue? Among gay 
activists the reason is narcissism. Though gays already have the right to 
raise children without an opposite-sex parent and the right to adopt 
children, gay activists want society to enshrine one-sex parenting with its 
highest seal approval — marriage. For gay activists, the fact that a child does 
best with a good mother and good father is of no significance (or worse, 
denied). All that matters is what is good for gays. 

Yet, in the name of rights, children continued to be used as pawns to push 
a radical social agenda. Here are a few examples (both international and 
national) of how children are getting trapped into various types of 
entanglements involving homosexual parents and alternative families: 

• In New Zealand, the following was reported: “A lesbian told a court... her 
partner's son was better off in a two-women ‘nuclear family’ than with his 
homosexual sperm donor father. But the boy might be allowed to play footy 
[football] with his dad one day, the Family Court heard. The two-year-old 
boy is at the center of a court battle over his sperm donor dad's request to 
see him every second weekend and alternative holidays.... The mother's 
lesbian partner said an on-going, traditional father-son relationship was not 
in the boy's best interests. It would be a ‘total reality change’ for him to 
suddenly have a deeper relationship with his father, she said. ...The mother 
said her son would be better off knowing his father as a donor rather than as 
a traditional dad. EThe case was eventually resolved with the court giving 
the boy three parents — the biological mother, her lesbian partner, and the 
homosexual sperm donor. 



98 



• In Great Britain, a study by a British think tank published a study titled 
“Broken Hearts: Family Decline and the Consequence for Society.” It found 
correlations between family breakups and “child homelessness, drug abuse 
among the young, the physical abuse and neglect of babies and children, 
high rates of teenage pregnancy and a continuing cycle of broken 
relationships.” The study was released while the House of Lords debated a 
bill that would have established “civil partnerships” to give homosexual and 
unmarried heterosexual couples the same legal rights as married couples. 
Report author Jill Kirby said, “We can see a sharp rise in children bom out of 
wedlock in the U.K. The report also identifies that children bom outside of 
marriage (including homosexual parenting situations) experience the break- 
up of their parents at a much faster rate than those bom to married 
couples.” 

• Also in England, a lesbian couple was given the same parental rights as 
heterosexuals after the couple's relationship had broken up. One of the 
women had one of the children with a man, so the child — like the young boy 
in New Zealand — now has three legal parents. One of the mothers stated, “To 
me, family is about cohesion, about bringing people up in a secure, loving, 
stable environment.” The couple's attorney echoed the sentiment: “Family is 
a broad concept that has to take into account the reality of who is caring for 
the child, not the biology of the parents.” 

• A deaf suburban Washington, D.C., lesbian couple said they did “everything 
possible” to make sure their newborn son was deaf by seeking a sperm donor 
for artificial insemination from a family with a long history of deafness. They 
wanted their family to have all the same characteristics and tried to design a 
baby to meet their own desires. Where can this all lead? 

• In New Jersey, a Sussex County Family Court mled that two women can be 
listed as parents on the birth certificate of the baby that they were to give 
birth to in May 2003. Homosexual activists tmmpeted the decision as 
another victory for “the expanding definition of family. ’E 

• In Canada, a lesbian couple asked a Canadian court to recognize the two of 
them, plus the biological father, as the legal parents of a young boy. Stanley 
Kurtz wrote in National Review: “The case. ..gives the clearest indication yet 
of the real impact that gay marriage will have on the American family.. ..Once 
parental responsibilities are parceled out to more than two people — even to 
someone living outside the household — it becomes that much easier for any 
one parent to shirk his or her responsibilities.... But the biggest danger here is 
that legalized triple parenthood opens the way to legalized polygamy or 
polyamory....And just as gay adoption has set a legal precedent for gay 
marriage, so will group parenthood pave the way to group marriage.. ..Gay 
marriage means group marriage — which means no marriage.” 

• In Sacramento, California, a lesbian couple created a child by combining one 
of the women's eggs with the sperm of an anonymous donor. The fertilized 
egg was then removed from the first lesbian and implanted in the other. The 
baby girl was then declared by a Superior Court Judge to have the two 
lesbians as her “natural parents.” Shanon Minter, legal director for the 
National Center for Lesbian Rights in San Francisco, said, “Two people in a 
committed, monogamous relationship who are raising a child together is my 



99 



definition of a family, regardless of gender. This is a new frontier.” 

In England, homosexual and lesbian couples are teaming up to “share” 
babies. In one case, a lesbian named Sue decided that she wanted to have a 
child with her partner, Kim. Kim had had two children from a heterosexual 
marriage. The lesbian couple said: “We wanted the potential father to donate 
sperm and not have any other involvement, although we would send a 
photograph of the children now and then.” 

Sue and Kim met John, a homosexual doctor, who donated the needed 
sperm. Two weeks later. Sue was pregnant with a baby boy. The boy. Jack, is 
now two years old, and they have had a second child, a girl named Kate. 

John changed his mind about being no more than a sperm donor after Jack 
was bom. Now, John and his partner Paul have a shared custody arrangement 
with Sue and Kim. The children refer to John as “Daddy,” Paul as “Daddy's 
partner,” Sue as “Mummy,” and Kim as “Mummy's partner.” Sue concluded: “I 
don't think if you are brought up in a gay environment you are going to be gay. I 
think being gay is due to genetics. It would be interesting to see if either of the 
kids are gay when they grow up.” 

Children have become pawns in a social experiment to see if they turn out 
deaf or if they turn out gay. The well-being of the child is denied, while the 
desires of the adults are exalted. 

And not everything is peaches and cream in homosexual households, 
despite what activists would like people to think. In Akron, Ohio, two lesbian 
women allegedly beat their five sons, locked them in the closet, and forced 
them to eat animal feces. One of the boys said, “My entire life has been 
horrifying because of the abuse, neglect, and mistreatment that both of you 
have inflicted.” Pictures showed the boys with ribs and collarbones protmding 
through the skin — while the couples' refrigerator and pantry were overflowing 
with food. While we readily acknowledge that horrible abuses such as this also 
regrettably happen in heterosexual homes, this is a side of homosexual 
“families” that rarely gets reported in the media. 

* Posters on the Boston transit system, sponsored by the Gay Men's Health 
Crisis, read: “1 in 4 gay men are victims of domestic violence in their 
relationships.” 

The Alliance Defense Fund has already provided funding for a case 
involving child custody issues between a Christian heterosexual mother and a 
group of three men in various stages of sex transformation, who claimed to be a 
family. What concept of family will these children have once they are adults? 

Then there are situations in which tolerant parents have deliberately tried 
to indoctrinate their children (and confuse them at the same time) with the 
homosexual agenda. Consider this alarming piece from USA Today by a tolerant 
parent (who writes for Parenting magazine and The Sesame Workshop) about his 
five-year-old daughter: 

Last spring I was sitting at the dining room table with my 5-year-old as 




too 



she pondered her latest homework assignment. Bridgette's kindergarten 
teacher had cleverly combined a writing exercise with the class study of the 
calendar by asking students to draw and label pictures that rhyme with the 
word “May.” 

Bridgette looked to me for help, so I began listing the possible “ay” 
words in the alphabet: “Ay, bay, cay, day, eay, fay, gay ...” 

Bridgette brightened: “Gay!” she announced. “That's it! And I know 
exactly what I'll draw.” 

Of the many times in which my young daughters have filled me with 
pride, this was clearly a standout. In a world that still instinctively blanches 
at the utterance of the word homosexual, it was uplifting to witness 
Bridgette, in her blissfully unjaded way, extract only joy from hearing “gay.” 
Indeed, all she really cared about was the picture she intended to draw. 
And what a picture it was: two men standing side by side, both smiling 
wildly, with hearts drawn above their heads. ... 

I'd be falsely immodest here were I not to credit my wife and myself 
for trying to provide a more decent perspective for Bridgey on 
homosexuality. Since the beginning, Alene and I have made it a point to 
stress love over gender [emphasis ours] as the most important criterion in 
selecting a partner, neither omitting nor gratuitously focusing on same-sex 
relationships. 

The piece goes on to discuss her relationship with her homosexual relatives 
and how they are so good to little Bridgey. But the bottom line is this: What 
kind of view will Bridgey have of traditional marriage and gender roles if she has 
been taught to stress love over gender in the selection of a mate? Does that 
mean that if she loves her dog, she should many it? After all, if love is more 
important than gender, is species really important? 

As George Dent wrote in his article, “The Defense of Traditional Marriage” 
in The Journal of Law and Politics: “Some argue that love is the only valid 
requisite for marriage. ...Love takes many forms. C. S. Lewis distinguished 
family love, affection, erotic desire, friendship, and compassion. All can be 
good, but compassion is not deemed a basis for maniage. Close relatives often 
love each other but cannot marry. One who is married may love a third party 
more than one's spouse, but one cannot marry the third party. Children can love 
but cannot marry. Many people love pets, but they cannot marry them. Hence, 
homosexual love is not the only love ineligible for marriage. Indeed, many 
forms of sexual love, such as pederasty, adultery, bestiality, and incest, are 
criminal even in states that permit homosexual acts.” 

And what about the two children from England? What kind of image will 
they have of marriage, when multiple partners are raising them? These children 
will become increasingly confused, and the result will be even more sexual 
dysfunction when they become young adults. 

Unfortunately, the indoctrination of schoolchildren (as discussed in chap. 
3) and the continual push to force children into alternative families does not 



101 



bode well for the future of marriage if these issues are allowed to go unchecked. 
The UCLA Higher Education Research reported that 57.9 percent of incoming 
college freshmen now support full recognition of same-sex marriage. 

It is not by coincidence that the very first thing that God created after the 
heavens and the earth was the family. It is his institution for the raising and 
nurturing of children. If we wreck what God has ordained, the generations that 
follow will reap the consequences of our actions. We have now learned, the 
painful way, that the divorce “reform” movement of the sixties started a cycle 
of dysfunctional relationships that is affecting future generations — leading to 
premarital sex, out-of-wedlock births, increased likelihood of dropping out 
of school, early marriage and divorce, poverty for many women, and so 
forth. In contrast, children who grow up well grounded in two-parent, 
traditional families are far more likely to have higher grades and are less 
prone to substance abuse. When the institutions of marriage and family are 
tinkered with, children are ultimately the losers. 

Stanley Kurtz puts it best: 

In setting up the institution of marriage, society offers special support 
and encouragement to the men and women who together make children. 
Because marriage is deeply implicated in the interests of children, it is a 
matter of public concern. Children are helpless. They depend upon adults. 
Over and above their parents, children depend upon society to keep them 
from chaos. Children cannot articulate their needs. Children cannot vote. 
Yet children are society. They are us, and they are our future. That is why 
society has the right to give special support and encouragement to an 
institution that is necessary to the well being of children — even if it means 
special benefits for some, and not for others.... It [same-sex “marriage”] 
will, however, spell the end of marriage, and of the protection marriage 
offers to vulnerable children who cannot vote or articulate their interests. 
The number of children potentially endangered by the collapse of marriage 
is far larger than the number of gays or “polyamorists.” 

And, if the indoctrination remains unchecked, another generation of 
children, following in the footsteps of generations that were socially 
engineered by divorce and radical feminism, will be damaged with little 
hope of repair. 



102 



CHAPTER SIX 



The Silence (and Silencing) of the 

Church 



[The Religious Right ] is not about to admit that they just want to bash 
gays if they can. . ..You have to remember, Sunday after Sunday, millions 
of people come to church to hear their diatribes. 

— Steven Green, spokesman, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State 



It was a Sunday morning in early December 1989. The late Cardinal John 
O'Connor was just beginning his sermon in New York City's St. Patrick's 
Cathedral. Suddenly, shouts came from the congregation. 

“You bigot, O'Connor, you're killing us,” yelled one angry man. Others 
quickly joined him from the militant homosexual group, ACT-UP, who stretched 
themselves out in the aisles or chained themselves to the pews. O'Connor tried 
not to be flustered and went on with the service. As he continued, the police 
arrested forty-three protesters, carrying out on stretchers those who refused to 
stand. One irate individual made his way to the altar for Communion, took a 
wafer, and threw it on the ground. 

Flash forward to 1993 in Colorado Springs, Colorado. In November 1992, 
the voters of Colorado had passed Amendment 2 that would have denied those 
who practice homosexual behavior special legal privileges. The man who helped 
get Amendment 2 on the Colorado ballot. Will Perkins, was sitting in his normal 
pew at Village Seven Presbyterian Church. Just before the pastor got up to read 
the morning Scripture, more than a dozen radical homosexual activists leaped 
out of their seats among the congregation and bombarded the parishioners with 
condoms. 

In 2004, militant homosexuals — who call themselves members of the 
“Rainbow Sash Alliance” — attempted to block access to the Communion rail at 
Chicago's Holy Name Cathedral. The priests had refused to serve them 
Communion because of the church's biblical stand opposing homosexual 
behavior. 

These examples are just a microcosm of the war that radical homosexual 
activists have staged against the church. It has been a war in which the church 
has either totally capitulated on the issue and embraced homosexual behavior 
while rejecting biblical teaching, or found herself under increasing attack from 
inside and outside the sanctuary for taking a biblical stand on the issue. 

What the Bible Says about Homosexual Behavior 



103 



Why is the battle so heated? Because for those who take their faith 
seriously. Scripture is very clear on this issue. 

1 Corinthians 6:9 — 10: “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit 
the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor 
idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor 
thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit 
the kingdom of God” (emphasis added). 

Matthew 19:4 — 5: ‘“Haven't you read,’ he [Jesus] replied, ‘that at the 
beginning the Creator “made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason 
a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two 
will become one flesh.’”” 

Romans 1:24 — 27: “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of 
their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one 
another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served 
created things rather than the Creator — who is forever praised. Amen. Because 
of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged 
natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned 
natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men 
committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due 
penalty for their perversion.” 

Leviticus 18:22: “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is 
detestable.” 

1 Timothy 1:8 — 11: “We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 
We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and 
rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill 
their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave 
traders and liars and perjurers — and for whatever else is contrary to the sound 
doctrine that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he 
entrusted to me.” 

In addition to these verses, there is the passage in Genesis 19 about God's 
destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (and it wasn't because of lack of 
hospitality as radical homosexual activists and theologically liberal churches 
argue) and how the men of the town attempted to have sexual relations with 
the angels the Lord had sent out to warn Lot of God's imminent judgment. 

These verses are straightforward, and it is difficult to see how anyone could 
interpret them as anything different than condemning of homosexual behavior. 
However, as we will see shortly, theologically left-of-center churches are either 
in total denial about these passages or cook up theories such as the one cited 
above, to explain away their affirmation of homosexual behavior. 

Before we launch into the issue of the church and homosexual behavior, 
we need to stop and make an important point. There is no irrelevant sin in the 
Bible. There is a long list of sins in the Bible, some more serious than others, 
but all wicked in the eyes of God who created us all to live without any sin. The 



104 



Word of God is clear in its condemnation of adultery, false witness, theft, and 
murder, just to name a few sins. We are all sinners who deserve condemnation, 
and it is only because of the love and saving grace of Jesus Christ that we can 
be reconciled to our Father and have eternal life. 

* Romans 3:23-24 says, “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 
and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ 
Jesus.” 

Therefore we strongly disassociate from and condemn those who spew 
phrases such as “God hates fags” or picket the funeral of an AIDS victim. Such 
behavior is beyond contempt and only escalates the anger radical homosexual 
activists have for the church. Christ had compassion for the sinner, and for 
believers to show otherwise would be spitting on the grace that he has offered 
to all of us, who are sinners, through his death and resurrection. 

However, we also make his death and resurrection meaningless if we 
cannot point a hurting individual to the love, mercy, and grace of Christ. When 
Christ loved someone, like the woman caught in adultery, he did not condemn 
her but expressed compassion for her. He also gave her the loving admonition 
to “go now and leave your life of sin” (John 8:11). As followers of Jesus Christ, 
we cannot sit idly by while someone is trapped in sinful behavior that separates 
him or her from God (John 8:24). We must be able to show people their need 
for a relationship with Jesus Christ, which only comes through illuminating the 
sinfulness of their behavior that separates them from their loving God. 

There is no activist movement that exists worldwide today (yet?) to legalize 
theft, adultery, or lying. But there is a mobilized movement that challenges 
God's truth on a daily basis in regard to homosexual behavior. 

Affirming Everything but the Scriptures 

Unfortunately, just as some in the church have shown a total lack of grace, 
the theologically liberal church has gone the other direction and totally 
capitulated on the issue without ever dealing with the sin and sorrow. Rather 
than helping those engaging in forbidden behavior to turn from their sin by 
pointing them to Christ, the theologically liberal church is providing “spiritual” 
cover that enables their actions and the terribly destructive results. 

For a vivid example of this, consider this excerpt of an article from Great 
Britain: 



A [British] government minister has launched an outspoken attack on 
church leaders in a new collection of prayers written for homosexuals. Ben 
Bradshaw, the Foreign Office Minister, accuses Christian leaders of 
“hostility” to homosexuals in a forward to a controversial anthology, which 
includes contributions by Church of England clergy. One prayer in the book 
is addressed to “the wife of my lover,” another prays that the next Pope 
“shall be young, colored, and gay” and one contributor argues that Jesus 
was a homosexual. Mr. Bradshaw, who is himself gay, said that the new 
book would “provide strength and inspiration for those who want to 
celebrate their God-given sexuality in the face of continuing rejection and 



105 



hostility from church leaders.” There are prayers in the book for same-sex 
“marriages,” sex changes, and “fantasy and fetish.” 

This may seem extreme, but this is what often happens when the church 
chooses to affirm homosexual behavior. The result is that the Bible is rewritten, 
as well as the liturgy, and the church itself becomes one big celebration of 
homosexual behavior. The liberal church in America is well down the same path 
as the Church of England. Here are just a few examples: 

• Liberal United Methodist ministers in Northern California held a mass 
wedding for same-sex couples in Sacramento. Despite the fact that this is a 
direct violation of the church's book of discipline. Bishop Melvin Talbert 
(who is supportive of same-sex “marriage”) turned the other way and chose 
to ignore the direct disobedience by these clerics to church teaching. 

• Another United Methodist minister refused to conduct legal marriages in her 
sanctuary until the denomination's ban on same-sex “marriages” was 
overturned. Her church describes itself as “a community of faith of about 
200 members from diverse backgrounds exploring together the many ways of 
understanding God. ..celebrating the gifts of all persons regardless of sexual 
orientation or gender identity.. ..We honor a diversity of theological 
expression, and use both feminine and masculine images of God.... [Our 
creed is a] diversity of theological expressions: traditional Christianity, an 
appreciation of other sacred texts, concern for ecological dimensions of the 
creation and planet. Liberation theology. Native American spirituality, and a 
critique of patriarchal religion and hierarchy. Diversity means reflecting both 
feminine and masculine images of God.” 



Religion is often at the core of why people hate vs. ...People often get their views from their 
religions, so we don't want the pulpit saying that being gayvis wrong. 

— Cathy Renna, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation 



This particular church was honored by its local government for flying 
the homosexual rainbow flag and providing “a venue to discuss 
homophobia in faith communities.” The pastor has gone as far as to 
endorse a “transgender antidiscrimination” bill that was passed by the New 
York City Council and amended the city's human rights ordinance to 
include “gender identity or expression” and grant civil rights protections to 
“transgender” or “variable gender” persons. 

• Drew University, the major Methodist university (located in Madison, N.J.) in 
the Northeast, was chosen as the “most gay friendly university” in the 
country. 

• The Rev. Howard Edington, the pastor of the successful First Presbyterian 
Church of Orlando (the fourth largest church in the PCUSA) was forced to 
retire under pressure from some members of his congregation and the 
Central Florida Presbytery because of his vocal opposition to the ordination 



106 



of homosexual pastors, same-sex marriage, and preaching a sermon against 
the city's sexual orientation anti-discrimination policy. Rev. Edington was 
also part of the Presbyterian Coalition, a group of pastors opposed to 
homosexual ordination. Rev. Jim Henry of the neighboring First Baptist 
Church said: “We have lost a voice of conviction that spoke eloquently 
calling us to the high ground of morals and values. We have lost one of the 
best communicators of the good news of hope in all the land.” 

• United Methodist minister Richard Zomastny went on voluntary leave in 
1999 to undergo a sex-change operation and become Rebecca Steen. He/she 
was subsequently approved to serve in the pulpit in the Baltimore- 
Washington United Methodist Conference. In his/her defense, the 
Reverend Chip Aldridge of the pro-homosexual group Reconciling Ministries 
Network said, “When persons simply say that the Bible views homosexuality 
as a sin, they're dealing with a specific, narrow interpretation of the Bible. 
And there are many astute Bible theologians who dispute use of those 
limited number of Biblical references to interpret how ministry should take 
place with gay and lesbian people in 2002.” Mr./Ms. Steen finally 
surrendered his/her credentials to be a minister; however. Bishop Felton 
Edwin May of the Baltimore-Washington conference said that the issue of 
transgender clergy would be brought up at the denomination's 2004 general 
conference. The Reverend Gayle Annis-Forder said, “It's time [for transsexual 
clergy].” 

• When the minister of Woodland Park (Washington) United Methodist Church 
came out and publicly stated that he was a “practicing gay man,” a 
denominational committee dismissed any ecclesiastical charges against him 
after asking him only one question, which he refused to answer. Another 
pastor, Karen Dammann, declared to her bishop that she was a practicing 
lesbian. A church trial occurred, and thirteen pastors acquitted her — 
despite the fact that the denomination's Book of Discipline forbids pastors 
from engaging in homosexual behavior. Her attorney said, “Karen has chosen 
not to live the lie. She has invited the United Methodist Church to come out 
of the closet with her and live a life of open honesty.” 

• The United Church of Christ already ordains practicing homosexuals. In 
August 2001, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America voted to study the 
blessing of same-sex unions and ordaining homosexual ministers. This is 
despite that fact that Martin Luther wrote, “The heinous conduct of the 
people of Sodom is extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the 
natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which was implanted 
by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes 
this perversity: Undoubtedly from Satan, who, after people have once turned 
away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he beats out 
the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature.” 

• In Philadelphia, an Episcopal priest was defrocked for stating that the church 
had become too liberal on issues such as the ordination of women and the 
recognition of same-sex “unions.” 

• In Canada, an Anglican church diocese agreed to bless same sex unions. The 
result was that a number of conservative Anglican churches voted to split 



107 



from the diocese. At a conference of the dissident churches. Archbishop 
Yong Ping Chung of Southeast Asia said that the church needed to adhere to 
biblical teaching with regard to homosexual behavior, stating: “The world is 
confused and chaotic without the Bible. The value and moral state of life, or 
lack of it, is forever changing according to what's seen to be the latest trend 
or fashion.” What is happening in the Anglican church is happening in 
other mainline denominations as well: the acceptance and affirmation of 
homosexual behavior is causing them to implode. 

• The leader of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, an 
ordained United Church of Christ minister, claimed during a debate on 
homosexual behavior that the Roman centurion commended by Jesus for his 
faith had a male sex slave kept with Jesus' approval (Matt. 8:5-13). He then 
compared Jesus to homosexuals, stating “was he not engaged fundamentally 
in an unnatural relationship” because he never married, comparing celibacy 
and homosexuality as equivalent. After the debate, this individual tried to 
suppress the distribution of the tape even though he had previously agreed 
to allow it to be made available. 

• A liberal Southern Baptist pastor in Wedgewood, North Carolina, Dr. Chris 
Ayers, preached a sermon titled “Homosexuality Is Not a Sin: The Christian 
Education of a Baptist Minister.” Wedgewood Baptist, the church Ayers 
pastors, left the Southern Baptist Convention several years ago because of 
the SBC's biblical stand on homosexual behavior. The pastor cited the work 
of theologian Walter Wink, rather than a biblical discussion of why he felt 
that homosexual behavior was not sinful. According to Wink, those who 
condemn homosexual behavior are guilty of “pick and choose” theology, 
discarding some Bible verses while hanging on to others. Ayers said that even 
Jesus was guilty of engaging in “pick and choose” theology. Yet, in his 
sermon, Ayers never discussed any of the New Testament verses that deal 
with homosexual behavior. It is interesting to note that those who 
advocate homosexual behavior “pick and choose” which Scriptures they 
choose to abide by and which they choose to ignore. 



There has been a radical cultural shift in the past ten years. Attitudes toward 
gays and lesbians have changed in the workplace, schoob, and other civic 
entities. For the church to continue to stall seems archaic and irrelevant. 

— Unnamed homosexual “pastor” 



• Boston College, a Catholic University, has granted official recognition to a 
gay-straight student alliance, even though homosexual behavior is 
incompatible with the church's teachings. 

• United Methodist theologian Rev. Theodore Jennings Jr. and Dr. Morton 
Smith of Columbia University said that there is “irrefutable evidence” that 
Jesus was bisexual if not homosexual. Dr. Rollan McCleary (who is 
homosexual) of the University of Queensland in Australia said that he 
“discovered” that three of the disciples were homosexual. Jennings says that 
the references to the “disciple Jesus loved” in the Gospel of John refers to 
his “gay boyfriend.” Smith says that he found a manuscript at a monastery 



108 



near Jerusalem that refers to Jesus having a homosexual relationship with a 
young boy. McCleary adds that Christianity was founded on “gay principles.” 
Homosexual activist Peter Tatchell commented, “Since there is no proof of 
the heterosexuality of Jesus, the theological basis of Church homophobia is 
all the more shaky and indefensible.” 

• The New Hampshire Episcopal Diocese elected Rev. Canon V. Gene 
Robinson, an openly practicing homosexual, to head the diocese. He quickly 
embraced his “partner” when he heard the news. He later won the consent 
of the General Convention and accolades from the national media. 

• Vermont's Episcopal Diocese has developed a liturgy for same-sex 
“marriages.” Stan Baker, the lead plaintiff in the Vermont “civil unions” case 
and the senior warden of St. Paul's Episcopal Church, said, “There isn't 
another diocese that has this complete a policy, with the theological 
background supporting it, the liturgy itself and the resources for the 
couple.” 

• Homosexual activists have developed a plan with left leaning mainline 
churches to argue that the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment limits the 
free exercise of religion — claiming that the amendment might ban 
prohomosexual clergy from performing same-sex “marriages.” It is their hope 
to “co-opt” the marriage issue from religious conservatives. 

• Historic churches in Cambridge, Massachusetts, have hoisted large posters 
on their exterior that say, “Support Marriage Equality — We Do!” 

To see how the radical homosexual agenda can permeate an entire church 
to the point where the church stands for nothing but the affirmation of 
homosexual behavior, consider this excerpt from the March 20, 2000, issue of 
Newsweek: 

When Sylvia Kunst and Linda Meeker met in a Detroit church five years 
ago, it felt like both a blessing and a curse. For years the two deeply 
religious women had denied their sexuality. Linda stayed in a heterosexual 
marriage for thirty years. Sylvia became bom again and convinced herself 
she was “cured” of her lesbianism. Be with God or be gay, that's what they 
were always taught. It seemed an impossible choice to make. “We knew 
that we loved one another but we also loved the Lord,” says Meeker.. .“We 
prayed and prayed for an answer.” 

The couple gave up finding a church until they saw a listing in a gay 
circular for Fellowship United Methodist, “a diverse and welcoming 
church. "...Tucked off the road, in a prim upper middle-class neighborhood 
in Troy, Michigan, the tiny church looked very traditional. The congregation 
consisted of mostly older, button-down and carefully coiffed married 
couples and widows. But the pastor wore a rainbow stole, a symbol of 
diversity. 

The article proceeds to describe the very same path that has led to the 
“homosexual liturgy” emerging in the Church of England. The Michigan church 
compromised once, hiring a homosexual choir director. That, in turn, led to the 
appointment of a pastor who preaches seemingly nothing but total acceptance 
of homosexual behavior. 



109 



According to the article, the Reverend Marjorie Munger “accessorizes her 
pastor's garb with iridescent gay-pride stickers, includes lessons on 
homosexuality in her sermons and lists the church in gay magazines.” Munger 
has also protested the church's position on homosexual behavior at the 
denomination's annual conference, stating, “Right now the church is intricately 
involved in creating a climate of spiritual violence. If you don't say anything at 
all, then you allow the voices of hate to be the dominant voices.” 

It must be interesting to see how the Reverend Munger interprets the 
Scriptures that deal with homosexual behavior. The most likely is probably the 
same dodge used in the past by radical feminists and others who have tried to 
reshape the church and the gospel in their own image. That dodge can be best 
summarized as “the Bible has to be interpreted in the context of the time it was 
written and therefore that passage is no longer relevant today.” That mind-set 
has opened the church and seminary doors to radical feminism, (including 
goddess worship), the rewriting of God's Word into “gender-inclusive” 
language, and in the most liberal examples, praying to “Mother and Father 
God” or “that great cosmic force in the sky.” 

• Craig attended a seminary in southern California that is renowned worldwide 
for its supposedly conservative, evangelical teaching. In the early eighties, the 
seminary had compromised on the issue of inclusive language, issuing a policy 
that a paper would automatically be given a failing grade if masculine pronouns 
were used for God and “mankind” was used instead of “humankind.” By the late 
eighties, the head of the “women's study” department at the seminary proudly 
posted the following signs on her office door: “Not the church, not the state, 
only I will decide my fate” (the credo of militant abortion supporters), “Lesbian 
Rights Now,” and “My Karma Ran Over Your Dogma.” Alan briefly attended 
another nationally acclaimed seminary where he was taught on the first day that 
the Bible was nothing but a book of myths and fables and that Pharoah's army 
drowned in “less than a foot of water” if there was anything to such a tale. 

t Craig grew up in a Methodist church in northern California during the 1970s 
that became increasingly liberal over the years. By the end of the decade, the 
church was praying to “Mother and Father God” and to “O Cosmic One.” The 
associate pastor at the church eventually left his wife (who was also a pastor) 
for another man. 

The Metropolitan Community Church 

The Metropolitan Community Church was founded by an openly 
homosexual former Baptist minister named Troy Perry, and it now claims more 
than seventy-seven thousand members. According to the church's Web site, 
members believe the following: 

• The Bible is full of errors that have resulted from being copied, recopied, and 
translated over and over again. 

• Homosexual behavior is not a sin in God's eyes. Instead, the teaching that 
homosexual behavior is sinful is the result of twisted teaching of 



no 



“homophobic” men. 

• The references to homosexual behavior in the Bible really don't mean what 
they say. 

• Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed not because of homosexual behavior but 
because the people there ignored the poor and needy. 

• Jonathan and David were homosexual lovers. 

• Ruth and Naomi were lesbian lovers. 

• As we mentioned before, Christ lived an alternative lifestyle and he loved 
other men besides John. 

• Christ wore a purple robe to the cross as a connotation of his 
homosexuality. 

Another method of denial is to change the definition of being a Christian. 
Consider this piece, “On Being Christian and Gay,” featuring a lesbian “family” 
and posted on the Web site of the prohomosexual Human Rights Campaign: 

My partner and I have spent a lot of time talking about organized 
religion and what does and what does not constitute a “Christian” person 
or family. [This topic] has something that has become a bit of a thorn in 
the side of our family. Although we do not attend a church or claim an 
organized religion, Sonya and I consider our home to be a loving, Christian 
home in which we raise our son. We have tried and tried to find a church 
that will accept us as a family here in our area. We have found several that 
have told us we were welcome to attend but they would openly state that 
homosexuality was a sin. How could we attend a church that taught our 
son that we were sinners?. ..Sonya and I were raised in different faiths with 
one common belief. We were taught to believe that God is a loving God. 
God does not hate or condemn anyone.. ..In our beliefs, a Christian would 
be defined as someone who is kind and giving to others.... A Christian treats 
all people equally and does not judge others for being different, but instead 
embraces and learns from diversity. 

Sadly, these women have a skewed notion of what a Christian is. Yes, as 
Christians we are called to love one another and to be kind and giving to one 
another. However, that is only one part of the equation. We are called to obey 
as well, and as we have already discussed, the practice of homosexual behavior 
is clearly not obedient. Obedience is a natural result of a personal relationship 
with Jesus Christ. Using their definition of being a Christian means that you can 
practice any kind of sin you want, and as long as you are loving and kind to 
others, you are fine. 

Their statements are an indictment of the churches we have described 
above as well. When the church no longer preaches the gospel or takes the 
teachings of the Bible seriously, then it does not matter what you believe or 
what actions you engage in because the only basis for membership is being civil 
to one another rather than calling sinners to repentance and new life in Jesus 
Christ. 

In addition, the comment about their son learning that his family members 
are sinners goes right to the struggle between homosexual behavior and 



ill 



religious freedom. The two are incompatible. The goal of the radical homosexual 
activists is to make sure that no church can say that homosexual behavior is 
sinful, lest they feel stigmatized. The only church they want is one that either 
affirms their behavior or merely exists for potluck dinners and bingo 
tournaments or for the advancement of leftist causes. 

As one homosexual activist said about the issue of same-sex “marriage”: 
“Ultimately I think it is religion, the liberal faith traditions, that are making the 
issue [of same-sex “marriage”] possible because they have already said, from 
Judaism to the United Church of Christ, that gay and lesbian couples can 
many.” 

Columnist Dennis Prager, a conservative Jew, probably put it best when it 
came to the spiritual confusion of pro-homosexual churches and synagogues. 
He wrote. 

There is nothing in mainstream Christianity or Judaism that supports 
same-sex maniage. There is nothing biblically supportive — and there is 
much biblically opposed — and there was not one major religious leader or 
thinker in Jewish or Christian history prior to the present generation who 
argued for same-sex marriage. Religious supporters of same-sex marriage 
have either substituted their own feelings for God, for the Bible, and for 
religious law, or they have simply attached a cross or a yarmulke to their 
leftist politics. Clergy and laypeople who stand the Bible on its head, no 
matter how well-intentioned they may be, are thoroughly distorting 
Judaism and Christianity. Intellectual honesty demands that they either 
support same-sex marriage solely from a secular standpoint or create a new 
religion from which to do so. If Judaism and Christianity do not stand for 
man-woman marriage and the father-mother family, they stand for 
nothing. 

Spiritual Apathy 

But it is not only pro-homosexual churches and synagogues that are 
empowering the advancement of same-sex “marriage” and the homosexual 
agenda. Many evangelical Christians are unwittingly doing so as well by treating 
the issue of same-sex “marriage” and other aspects of the homosexual agenda 
with little more than a shrug of the shoulders. Many have either thrown up their 
hands in a “what's the use” attitude, are ambivalent about the effect on samesex 
“marriage” on their children and grandchildren, or are fearful of being seen as 
“intolerant.” 

The New York Times reported the following on February 28, 2004: “[D]own 
in the pews of Western Michigan, a major center of evangelical Prostestantism, 
not everyone is sure that the proposed [federal marriage] amendment matters 
so much. ‘For me personally, even though I have a strong religious belief, who 
am I to say?’ said Grant Reed. ..a member of the non-denominational evangelical 
Ada Bible Church in Ada, a suburb of Grand Rapids.. .‘I think we have bigger 
things to worry about than whether two men or two women want to get 
married.’” 



112 



The article goes on to quote Jeff Manion, pastor of Ada Bible Church: 
“Though the church, and though I, have firm convictions about sexuality, our 
ministry is primarily about people's spiritual life and not about pushing a 
political agenda.” 

Unfortunately, like many others in the evangelical community, this pastor 
is unable to connect the dots between same-sex “marriage” and people's 
spiritual condition. How can one minister to someone's spiritual life when the 
government openly sanctions and enables the very behaviors that trap him and 
that will ultimately lead to his eternal destruction? Secondly, what about the 
spiritual life of future generations, who will be taught that same-sex “marriage” 
is as normal as heterosexual marriage — and will be further indoctrinated in 
either pursuing homosexual behavior or have their ability to live and proclaim 
the gospel seriously impaired? 

Christian commentator Chuck Colson summarized this spiritual 
ambivalence succinctly: “What's our excuse for staying silent? I think some 
[Christians] don't really believe this is such a critical battle. To them I say — 
wake up and pay attention. The issue has the potential to redefine and, 
ultimately, to destroy the institution of marriage in this country — and with 
marriage goes the family.... But there are other Christians who recognize the 
importance of this battle over same-sex “marriage” but are still not speaking up. 
For many of them, I think the problem is a lack of faith.... A lot of Christians — 
even some of our most prominent leaders — seem to have succumbed to the 
‘what's the use?’ attitude. They believe that the cultural climate has turned so 
much against us that we'll never be able to stop the advance of same-sex 
‘marriage.’” 

As Dennis Prager wrote, if the church is silent on this issue — or embraces 
the promotion of same-sex “marriage” and homosexual behavior — then what 
does the church stand for? 

The Campolos 

In addition, several individuals who would describe themselves as 
“evangelicals” also have promoted much of the homosexual agenda. Like Lot in 
Genesis 19, they have chosen to associate themselves with the radical 
homosexual movement and have focused on love without repentance. 

Tony Campolo and his wife Peggy have spent the last ten to fifteen years 
touring the country and weaving part of the homosexual agenda into many of 
their presentations at unwitting churches and Christian organizations. Tony has 
done wonderful things in ministry for the poor and should be commended for 
his efforts in that area. He also has had a wide following on college campuses 
and is extremely influential with a major college ministry. His extremely 
charismatic personality has had a tremendous, and life-changing, impact on 
many young adults. 

However, in the mid-to-late 1980s, the Campolos started to edge toward 
the promotion of much of the homosexual agenda. 

* Peggy Campolo is a national leader of the Association of Welcoming and 



113 



Affirming Baptists, a homosexual friendly caucus in the American Baptist 
Denomination. 

In 1987, Tony was invited by a committee of evangelical pastors and 
leaders in the Sacramento, California, area to conduct a crusade at Arco Arena, 
the home of the Sacramento Kings basketball team. Craig was on staff at one of 
the churches that invited Tony to the event. 

While Tony thought the crusade was a smashing success and that the 
committee believed he was great, that was not necessarily the case^l 

* At a staff meeting later that week the pastor of the church that Craig worked 
in said that the committee would never invite Campolo back again. 

The last night of the crusade, Campolo convinced the crusade organizers to 
do a “media ploy” and have the offering go to a local AIDS group. It was his 
thought that the sight of evangelicals giving money to an AIDS group would 
gamer media attention for the cmsade. While we would agree that many 
Christians acted callously toward AIDS victims in the 1980s and that we must 
minister (by living and sharing the gospel) to those who are dying a sad, painful, 
but preventable, death, Campolo used the incident in his book 20 Hot Potatoes 
Christians Are Afraid to Touch as a launching pad to castigate Christians, saying, 
“I hope that we will see church people show as much love for AIDS victims as 
has been shown by actress Elizabeth Taylor, who has worked relentlessly on 
their behalf.” 



Apartheid, is a sin. Racism is a sin. Sexism is asm. Heterosexism is a sin.. ..How God created 

ns to love is not sinful. 

— Rev. Susan A. Minasian, pastor. Disciples United Community Church, Lancaster, 

Pennsylvania 



Yet, is it love to work as Elizabeth Taylor has in the promotion of “safe sex” 
and special privileges for homosexuals, which only enable the harmful behavior, 
or is it love to share the full, uncensored gospel with those who are in desperate 
need? 

Peggy Campolo has gone even further in the promotion of the homosexual 
agenda. She has stated publicly that she believes Romans 1 does not apply to 
monogamous, “loving,” homosexual relationships. She also has stated support 
for same-sex marriage. While Tony has argued on behalf of homosexuals in the 
military and extending federal civil rights protections to practicing 
homosexuals, he does not go as far as Peggy in these areas and has stated 
publicly that he does disagree with her interpretation of Romans 1 and with her 
stance on same-sex marriage. 

Despite this, many conservative, evangelical Christians remain unaware of 
the Campolos' support for the homosexual agenda in the church and welcome 
them into their ministries with open arms. 



114 



The actions of the Campolos and other evangelicals who have given aid and 
comfort to radical homosexual activists reminds us of the story of Sodom and 
Gomorrah, in which Lot refers to those who seek to engage in homosexual 
behavior. On one hand, these evangelicals say, “Don't do this wicked thing,” and 
yet call homosexual activists “my friends” and attack those who are trying to 
take a stand for righteousness. 

Mel White is the founder of Soulforce, an organization dedicated to the 
silencing of the church with regard to homosexual behavior. His organization 
pickets the Southern Baptist Convention on an annual basis because of that 
denomination's biblical stand on the issue. White has written a book justifying 
homosexual behavior and regularly receives positive press coverage about his 
pleas for “understanding.” 

White also staged a hunger strike in light of Focus on the Family's support 
of Amendment 2, which attempted to prohibit cities in Colorado from granting 
special legal privileges to homosexuals, and planned to stage a homosexual 
protest next to the ministry's campus. 

One of White's assertions is that conservative Christians lack grace when 
dealing with those trapped in homosexual behavior. However, we need to look 
at the biblical understanding of “grace” as written by the apostle Paul in 
Romans 6. It is not something to be taken lightly: 

What shall we say then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may 
increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any 
longer?... Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you 
obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as 
instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those 
who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body 
to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, 
because you are not under the law, but under grace. What then? Shall we 
sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don't you 
know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, 
you are slaves to the one whom you obey — whether you are slaves to sin, 
which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? (w. 
1-2, 12-16). 

Those who are trapped in homosexual behavior, just like those who engage 
in adultery or are addicted to hard-core pornography or other sexual sins, are 
slaves to that sin. Yet, while most in the church continue to take a fairly hard 
line on adultery, for instance, the same leaders have chosen, in many instances, 
to ignore the fact that homosexuals are also slaves to sin and are in need of 
being pointed to the way of obedience, which leads to righteousness. 

Unfortunately, many evangelicals fear the I word (intolerant) and therefore 
seek appeasement with those who seek to undermine and silence the moral 
authority of the church and the gospel. It is much like Neville Chamberlain's 
going to see Adolf Hitler at Munich in 1938 and selling out his own country and 
its allies for the sake of “peace in our time.” 

The bottom line is that with radical homosexual activists appeasement is 



115 



not enough. As we have seen, they are demanding total submission to their 
agenda. Therefore, with each compromise the church makes, another 
compromise is expected, until the church has nothing left to defend. That is the 
exact strategy developed by Kirk and Madsen in 1987, and much of the church 
has unwittingly fallen into their trap. 

Attacks on the Church 

Let us take a turn here from the appeasement of the church to the trench 
warfare being waged by radical homosexual activists and their allies in the 
media against the moral authority of the church. It is not much unlike 
Chamberlain being convinced that by appeasing Hitler he would avoid war with 
Germany, at the same time Hitler was lining up his troops to invade Poland. 

The most vivid example of the type of warfare being staged by radical 
homosexual activists and their allies is the sexual abuse scandal in the Roman 
Catholic Church. 

It has been documented that a cadre of homosexual priests has caused a 
large amount — if not virtually all — of this abuse. However, the radical 
homosexual activists, the media, and all others who despise what the church 
stands for, have seized the opportunity in an attempt to swing the church doors 
open wide for the practice of homosexual behavior, militant feminism, support 
for abortion, and so forth — all of which fly in the face of the basic tenets of the 
faith. 

For two thousand years, the Roman Catholic Church has taken an 
unequivocal stand on the Scriptures' teaching regarding homosexual behavior 
and traditional relationships between men and women. From the writings of 
Saint Thomas Aquinas to the most recent version of the Catechism of the Catholic 
Church, homosexual behavior, adultery, and other sexual sins are condemned. 
Here are some excerpts that deal specifically with homosexual behavior: 

• “Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. 
Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its 
procreative and unitive purposes.” 

• “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who 
experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction towards persons of 
the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and 
in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. 
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of 
grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are 
intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the 
sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from genuine affection and 
sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." 

• “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual 
tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; 
for most of them it is a trial. This must be accepted with respect, 
compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their 
regard should be avoided....” 



116 



• “Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery 
that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested 
friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually 
and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” 

* Cf. Genesis 19:1-29; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10. 

The Roman Catholic Church takes an uncompromising stand on the nature 
of human sexuality. The church's call for celibacy is meant to liberate its priests 
from sexual temptation. It is not meant to oppress them and force them to act 
out on so-called suppressed sexual desires, including homosexual behavior and 
pedophilia. The Catechism also stresses the need to have compassion for the 
individual trapped in homosexual behavior. 

Despite what the catechism says, those who wish to remake the church in 
their image have attacked celibacy as the cause of the horrible incidents that 
have occurred in the church. Rather than attack the root of the problem, 
seminarians and priests who have chosen not to live by the teachings of the 
church have adapted the world's view of sexuality and therefore have given 
themselves over (as in Rom. 1) to “shameful lusts.” 

Sad to say, because of the fear of ridicule and rejection for taking biblical 
stands, many in the Roman Catholic Church itself have played into the hands of 
those who seek to destroy it. George Weigel in his book, The Courage to Be 
Catholic, describes the tension that has occurred within the church from the 
infiltration of practicing homosexuals into the priesthood. Many Catholics, in 
fear of already being “politically incorrect” and the object of secular scorn on 
the issues of abortion and the ordination of women, try to do anything possible 
to make themselves look politically liberal and tolerant. (This is also a trend that 
is seen among many evangelical Protestants as well.) Weigel writes. 

Many U.S. bishops, feeling stuck in politically and culturally 
uncomfortable company on the pro-life and women's ordination issues, 
were eager to look “liberal” on as many other issues as possible.... This 
determination not-to-appear “conservative,” which fit neatly with what 
bishops had absorbed from the therapeutic culture, seems to have created 
a fear of appearing “judgmental” and “homophobic” in dealing with cases 
of clergy sexual abuse. The bishop surely knew by the early 1990s that the 
overwhelmingly majority of cases of abuse had to do with the abuse of 
teenage boys and young men by homosexual clergy. Yet they were slow to 
act? Why? The determination to appear liberal on social issues other than 
abortion and euthanasia, and the fear of adding “homophobe” and 
“misogynist” in the standard American high-cultural vocabulary of put- 
downs of the Catholic Church, may well have blunted the bishops' ability 
to deal vigorously with the breakout of the scandal of clergy sexual 
abuse. 

Before we continue with our discussion on the attack on the Catholic 
Church by radical homosexual activists and their allies, we need to make it clear 
that we are not condoning the cover-up of, or the terrible sexual abuse that has 
unfortunately occurred. We have great compassion on those who were abused 



117 



as children by sexual predators who disguised themselves as men of God. 

However, despite the abhorrent nature of what has occurred, we cannot 
remain silent about how radical homosexual activists and their allies are 
exploiting this tragedy for their own personal, political, and legal gains. 

Paul Likourdis, writing in The Wanderer, properly described the exploitation 
of this tragedy when he observed, “Catholics who thought there might be some 
reticence on the part of gay activists in the face of the Church's current 
homosexual scandals, can see now how homosexual misconduct and crimes 
actually advance their agenda, just as the AIDS disease was exploited, spun, and 
twisted to enormously advance public support for homosexual acts and 
homosexuals, exemplified by the AIDS activists' slogan, ‘AIDS Is Our Power!’” 

So-called progressive Catholics (who perhaps should not call themselves 
Catholic since they oppose every basic tenet of the faith), like Frances Kissling 
of Catholics for a Free Choice and the homosexual Catholic group Dignity, 
have used this unfortunate scandal as a wedge issue in their drive to remake the 
church the way they want it to be. Writing for National Review Online, Michael 
Novak explains their agenda: 

* Dignity has gone as far as to sue the Newman Center and Chapel (a Roman 
Catholic meeting center) in Minneapolis, Minnesota, because the center did not 
renew Dignity's lease because of legitimate biblical differences. Dignity had 
wanted to conduct a mass on the church property The Newman Center was 
initially found in violation of the city's Civil Rights Ordinance protection against 
discrimination on the basis of “affectional preference,” and faced a civil fine of 
$ 15,000 plus other related legal costs. The Minnesota Court of Appeals 
overturned the decision. 

According to Tom Fox, long-time publisher/editor of The National 
Catholic Reporter, the flagship publication of “progressive” Catholics, a 
new wind is blowing, a new surge of energy, and the moment has come for 
charging into the breach in the thick walls of the Church, just blasted by 
the current scandals, in order to install at last the once-deferred new 
“progressive” church. 

That dream has two essential parts. ...The second part consists in 
changing the sexual teachings of the Church, to make it conform to current 
understandings and practices. ..not only to welcome a homosexual 
ordination as a good [thing] but also to accept (as long as they are loving 
and respectful of the other) homosexual acts, to acquiesce in the 
naturalness of premarital sexuality, to permit divorce and remarriage, and 
generally to extend a warmer and more poetic acceptance of sensual, 
erotic, and sexual experience.. ..In short, the Roman Catholic Church should 
become rather more like the Church of England. The cross can be taken 
down from the steeples and replaced with a weathervane.... 

The reason for this heightened optimism among the “progressives” is a 
sudden opportunity thrust upon them to defame the legacy of Pope John 
Paul II, which they had feared would extend far beyond their own 
lifetimes. Now, they sense, is their last opportunity to dismantle the church 



118 



as we have known it. 

Kissling, who has made it her own personal crusade to get the Vatican 
kicked out of the United Nations because of its anti-abortion stand, has 
exploited the abuse tragedy to push her agenda. Kissling has called upon the 
United Nations to sanction the Vatican. Her mission and that of the radical 
homosexual activists? It is best summed up in the words of Austin Ruse, 
president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, “Their concern is 
not with the church. Their concern is with overthrowing the church.” 

And sure enough the media is attacking with a vengeance the elderly and 
frail pope, who has taken courageous biblical positions on homosexual behavior 
and the sanctity of human life. In a virulent New York Times op-ed column titled 
“Is the Pope Catholic?” Bill Keller not only attacked the pope but the entire 
moral foundation of the church: “The uncomfortable and largely unspoken truth 
is that the current turmoil in the Roman Catholic Church is not just a sad 
footnote to the life of a beloved figure. This is a crisis of the Pope's 
making.. ..The distrust is the legacy of Pope John Paul II.” 

And how was the pope responsible for the crisis, according to Keller? By 
abiding by the moral teachings of the church. He continued his diatribe: 

But the struggle within the church is interesting as part of a larger 
struggle within the human race, between the forces of tolerance and 
absolutism.. ..Implored by Catholics to consider, at least, the lifesaving 
power of condoms in the age of AIDS, Pope John Paul II was unyielding. 
He actually grouped contraception with genocide in a litany of 
“intrinsically evil” acts that condemn sinners to hell for eternity.. ..In 
America, most Catholics ignore the Pope on this, as they do on divorce and 
remarriage, abortion, sex out of wedlock, homosexuality, and many other 
things that Rome condemns as violations of natural law. It seems fair to 
say that a church that was not so estranged from its own members on 
subjects of sex and gender, a more collegial [i.e., tolerant] church, would 
have handled the issue of child abuse earlier and better. 

* Catholics such as Frances Kissling. 

To follow this line of thought means that, in Keller's eyes, the church's 
problem (and these statements can be translated to every church that takes 
these biblical teachings seriously, not just the Catholic Church) is that it 
defends biblical morality by actually calling sinners to repentance. In his 
viewpoint, and those who call themselves progressives, the last thing the church 
should be doing is preaching moral absolutes but should instead allow 
homosexual behavior, along with other sexual sins, to run rampant through the 
church. Thus, the Catholic Church (and all other churches) would become like 
the tolerant liberal churches, i.e., not much more than a country club. 

In response to Keller's vicious attack on the pope and the moral absolutes 
of the church, Pat Buchanan wrote, “That Keller would hail the salvific 
properties of condoms is also understandable when one realizes who he works 
for. According to its political correspondent Richard Berke, speaking to the Gay 
and Lesbian Journalists Association, ‘Three-quarters of the people who decide 




119 



what goes on the front page [of the Times] are “not-so-closeted” 
homosexuals.’” 

The duplicity of the argument (“Intrinsically disordered behavior caused 
the problem so let's open up the doors to more such behavior”) put forth by 
radical homosexual activists and progressives boggles the mind. It is always 
interesting to note that they always demand that conservative, Bible-believing 
institutions reject their beliefs and embrace modem sexuality (which has 
brought us AIDS, teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, to name just 
a few “benefits”). This is despite the fact that, in the case of the Catholic 
Church, it was a contingent of homosexuals violating their promises to celibacy 
in the priesthood that has caused the problem to begin with! In addition, there 
is never a link to the fact that while at the same time homosexual activists are 
attacking the church for allowing men who prey on teenage boys to infiltrate 
the priesthood, they are attacking the Boy Scouts for keeping the same 
individuals out! 

This argument reminds us of the old adage “We need to destroy this city to 
save it.” Jon Meacham wrote a prime example of this in the May 6, 2002, issue 
of Newsweek: “Some Catholic traditionalists are trying to manage the scandal's 
fallout by arguing that the sexual predation of children and teens by priests is 
largely a homosexual issue. Such a stance isolates the problem and, 
conservatives seem to hope, forecloses talk about the future of celibacy, 
married priests or, at the farthest edge, ordaining openly gay clergy and allowing 
samesex unions. By pointing their fingers mainly at homosexuality, these church 
leaders are avoiding discussion of the questions that should be front and center: 
the roots and costs of a culture of sexual repression and secrecy.” 

Meacham went on to call for the ordination of homosexual priests, the 
open practice of homosexual and heterosexual sexual license in the church, and 
rejection of traditional marriage. He stated: “Being more open about sexual 
orientation might lead to less repression, and less repression — for heterosexuals 
and homosexuals — might well lead to a climate in which there is less 
destructive behavior.” He adds: “Isn't the role of the church to encourage 
people to enter into stable relationships? [No, it is to preach the gospel. Loving, 
stable opposite-sex marital relationships flow naturally out of submission to 
Christ — the authors.] The purpose of marriage, or ‘unions,’ or whatever we want 
to call them, should be the establishment of a committed, loving family. 
Heterosexuals who do not produce children are no less ‘married. ’...We've 
changed the definition of marriage before, both to liberate women from being 
legal property and to allow people of different races to many. Such an approach 
should encourage monogamy and bring homosexuals into the fuller life of the 
community. ” 

* This is in despite of a 1961 Catholic Church document that bars the 
ordination of homosexuals to the priesthood. The document reads: “Those 
affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty should be 
excluded from religious vows and ordination. ” 

t A top Vatican official announced on December 5, 2002, that the church must 
not bring homosexuals into the priesthood. Cardinal Jorge Arturo Medina 



120 



Estevez wrote that ordination of “homosexual men or men with homosexual 
tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from a pastoral point 
of view, very risky” See Nicole Winfield, “Vatican Aide Rejects Ordination of 
Gays,” Associated Press, December 6, 2002. 

In a very blunt column for Universal Press Syndicate, Ann Coulter exposed 
the shallowness of these arguments. She wrote: 

Since liberals categorically reject the notion that homosexual conduct 
is often correlated with homosexuality, they have responded to the gay sex 
abuse crisis in the priesthood by blaming Catholicism. In particular, liberals 
have identified the church's celibacy requirement as the root of the 
problem. 

There is absolutely no logic to this theory. It is nothing more than 
liberals reacting to the concept of sexual restraint like The Exorcist's Linda 
Blair did to holy water.... When did celibacy become a gay magnet?... If 
celibacy is to blame, this is a show-stopping, Nobel Prize winning discovery 
overturning years of liberal claptrap. In all other circumstances, it is 
punishable by death to suggest that sexual behavior is not determined at 
birth or that gays can be “cured.” Now liberals are hawking the idea that 
gay priests could have been cured by marriage! It's nice to see liberals 
becoming such big marriage-boosters. Too bad their newfound respect for 
marriage — an eminently dissolvable agreement, rescindable by either party 
without cause or notice — is limited to gays and priests. 

Blaming celibacy is not only contrary to various liberal dogmas, but 
contrary to all known evidence about any vice. Total avoidance, not limited 
temptation, is the only hope for controlling weakness. 



I've never felt condemned, by God — it's just the church that's the problem 
— Mark Matson, a homosexual human relations director, Columbus, Ohio 



Columnist John Leo, writing in U.S. News and World Report, added that the 
increasing tolerance of homosexual behavior and other sexual behaviors, inside 
and outside the church, played a significant role in the scandal. 

The rise of the sexually active gay subculture among the clergy didn't 
cause the horrors of priestly sex abuse. The vast majority of gay priests 
would never prey on the young. But did the subculture play the role of 
enabler in the scandals? I think it did, expanding tolerance for the forbidden 
and generating a sense of futility among the rule-keepers [emphasis added]. 
Self-deception is infinitely expandable. One man's justification for violating 
celibacy or the ban on nonmarital sex is another man's justification for 
“intergenerational love,” formerly child rape. 

The way out for the church is not to hunt down and expel every last 
gay priest, which would be impossible anyway. But it should restore the 
pressures to keep priests, gay and straight, from acting out sexually. 



121 



whether by showering with a mature friend or preying on a child. The key 
principles are easily learned: Maybe celibacy will be changed some day, but 
if you make a vow to stay celibate, you ought to keep your word. And in 
the seminaries. Catholic sexual morality should be taught by people who 
actually believe it. Is this controversial? 

Sad to say, according to the homosexual activists and the media, it is 
controversial for the church to actually teach and live out what the Bible says 
about homosexual behavior. Therefore, while radical homosexual activists and 
their allies within the church are trying to reshape it into a modem-day Sodom 
and Gomorrah, others are attacking it from the outside in hopes of bringing the 
church to its knees. Both routes can lead to the church's eventual destmction. 
This is the strategic approach that radical homosexual activists use to achieve 
their agenda. They try to convince the media and the general public that they 
represent the “high road” while bombing their enemy incessantly. 

Here are just a few examples of this tactic: 

• In California, a bill was introduced by Senate President Pro Tern John L. 
Burton of San Francisco (any coincidence?) that would lengthen the statute 
of limitations so adult victims could sue the Roman Catholic Church for 
damages. The bill passed a Senate committee unanimously. 

• A Saint Paul, Minnesota, attorney named Jeff Anderson, who has made a 
career out of clergy abuse cases, included the Vatican in a RICO 
(Racketeering, Intimidation, and Corrupt Organization) lawsuit. In RICO 
suits, defendants, if found guilty, have to pay triple the amount of court- 
ordered damages. The law, which was created for dealing with organized 
crime, is meant to bankrupt such organizations. Anderson said, “We filed a 
lawsuit naming several dioceses and bishops as racketeers in an ongoing 
conspiracy to conceal child sexual abuse. We also named the Vatican as in 
part responsible for the racketeering activity.” 

• In San Francisco, openly homosexual district attorney Terence Hallinan 
asked the archdiocese there for seventy-five years of records related to sexual 
misconduct by priests. 

Regardless of claims to the contrary, the current sexual problem in the 
Catholic Church is primarily a homosexual behavior problem. As Rod Dreher 
wrote in the National Review: “The reluctance [to mention homosexuality] 
arises, no doubt, partly out of a fear of antagonizing homosexual anti- 
defamation groups, who resent the stereotype of male homosexuals as 
pederasts. It's much safer to focus inquiry on the question of mandatory 
celibacy, or the issue of ordaining women. Yet it defies common sense to 
imagine that an ordinary man, having made a vow not to marry, is therefore 
going to be sexually attracted to boys.” 

To get a glimpse of why this is a homosexual issue, one need not look any 
further than the Reverend Paul R. Shanley, one of the most notorious priests 
caught in the scandal. He has been indicted in the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts for various crimes. During his time in the priesthood, Shanley 



122 



allegedly engaged in the following: 

• While on “sick leave” in California, his payroll checks were sent to the 
Cabana Club Resort, a racy homosexual club in the Palm Springs, California, 
area. Shanley became an owner of the hotel along with another homosexual 
priest who was on sick leave as well. 

• He attended the 1979 meeting that created the North American Man-Boy 
Love Association (NAMBLA). 

It has also been well documented that many liberal Catholic seminaries 
have a gay subculture. For example, it has been estimated that at one time 
homosexuals made up anywhere from 30 to 70 percent of the student body at 
St. John's Seminary in Camarillo, California. Scott Appleby, a history 
professor at Notre Dame University, said, “People I know quite well have left 
the seminary either in disgust because people are not keeping their vows, or in 
alienation because they're not gay. In some cases, it's a serious problem.” 

• One of the more detailed books on this subject is Goodbye Good Men\ by 
Michael Rose. He devotes an entire chapter to the homosexual subculture at 
Catholic seminaries. Other chapters include a detailed discussion of the impact 
of left-leaning theology and its application on two generations of prospective 
Catholic priests. Interestingly, he documents an increase in the number of 
seminarians and dioceses loyal to traditional biblical teaching on homosexual 
behavior, e.g., the Diocese of Omaha, led by Bishop Fabian Bruschewitz. 

Joel Mowbray, a lifelong, practicing Catholic, put the problem this way: 

Male homosexuality is inherently promiscuous. In a heterosexual 
relationship, women moderate the innate, intense male sex drive. But in a 
homosexual conduct, there is no such check. In short, gay couples have 
two people with male attitudes about sex, which naturally leads to a more 
permissive view of sexuality. And when seminaries began filling up with 
homosexuals — both in terms of seminarians and in leadership positions — 
promiscuity inevitably followed. ...So how does this relate to the sex abuse 
scandals? The generation of priests who are largely responsible for the rash 
of sexual abuse cases mostly entered the priesthood at an extremely early 
age, ushered into an ensconced environment where they never got a chance 
to grow up. Teenage boys are the natural objects of sexual desire for an 
immature homosexual who was enveloped in a promiscuous, homosexual 
culture in the seminary. 

John Leo echoed these thoughts in U.S. News and World Report: “The 
church's ‘pedophile priest’ problem is actually two problems blurred into one. 
True pedophiles are rare. Most sexual abuse victims of priests are teenage boys 
— perhaps 95 percent, according to one estimate. A study of Chicago's 2,200 
priests identified 40 sexual abusers, only one of whom was a pedophile. 
Abusers of teens are generally treatable. Pedophiles aren't. But the church is 
reluctant to mention the distinction, most likely because opening up the issue of 
sexually active gay priests is itself explosive, even apart from charges of abuse.” 
[emphasis ours] 



123 



Father Donald B. Cozzens, author of The Changing Face of the Priesthood, 
asked the pointed question: “Why are 90 to 95 — and some estimates say as high 
as 98 — percent of the victims of clergy acting out against teenagers, boys? Why 
isn't there a higher percentage of teenage girls?” 

The Knights of Columbus ran an advertisement in the Washington Times that 
stated: “We speak of homosexuality, for this indeed is the problem. We all know 
the truth: The vast majority of the exposed scandals are cases of pedophiliac 
homosexuality, and thus a particularly heinous spillover of the more widespread 
problem of homosexuality. Large sectors of the media, however, choose to gloss 
over the homosexuality and highlight the pedophilia.” 

In fact, while the media was concentrating so hard on the problem in the 
Catholic Church, homosexual priests and nuns within the church continued on 
as if nothing had happened. The National Association of Diocesan Lesbian and 
Gay Ministries had a conference in Cincinnati in September 2002 that featured 
seminars on “Creating a Welcoming Parish,” “Catholics Respecting Youth in 
Sexual Minorities,” and “Spirituality for Gay Men.” 

The New York Times, Time and Newsweek, to mention a few, brought up 
the specter of homosexual priests but trod on that turf quite lightly, because 
they were aware that too much discussion of the issue might derail the 
homosexual agenda. Rob Dreher wrote, “For journalists, to confront the issue is 
to risk touching the electrified third rail of American popular culture: the dark 
side of homosexuality.” 

The homosexual activist groups are well aware that this issue, which many 
hope to exploit to undermine the moral authority of the Catholic Church, could 
explode directly in their faces. Paul Bedard wrote in U.S. News and World Report, 
“Gay groups are freaking out over the progression in news coverage of the 
Roman Catholic Church sex scandal. What started as a story about a few bad 
men in black has moved to headlines about a subculture of gay priests, some of 
whom sexually abuse altar boys, and others who may tolerate the crimes.... Their 
worry: After making homosexuality acceptable in the media, the fight might be 
back to square one.” 

As secular news publications started to raise the specter of homosexuality 
in the priesthood and its link to the sexual abuse of teenage boys, the Gay and 
Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and the Human Rights Campaign 
(HRC) put out the following “talking points” to members of the media in order 
to spin the story away from homosexual behavior: 

Do not imply, suggest or allow others to suggest a cause/effect 
relationship between homosexuality and child sexual abuse. Attempts to 
insinuate that gay men — either within or outside of the priesthood — have a 
natural propensity to sexually abuse minors are baseless, defamatory and 
calculated to fuel anti-gay sentiment among the general public. Please also 
note that priests who sexually abuse children are guilty of abusive 
exploitation that is not reflective of any healthy adult sexual orientation — 
gay or straight.... When your coverage touches on sexual 



124 



orientation/identity issues, please broaden your resource base to include 
“openly gay Catholics.” One of the “openly gay Catholic” groups GLAAD 
and HRC recommends [sic] for media people is Dignity/U.S.A. 

The radical homosexual activists know that this can either be a golden 
moment to weaken the Catholic Church and further restrict religious freedom, 
or a moment when people will see the dark side of homosexuality and its link to 
pedophilia and other sexually disordered behavior. As Anthony DeStefano wrote 
in USA Today: “Their [critics of the Catholic church] true aim is to hurt the 
church, to damage its credibility in order to reduce its ability to work effectively 
against the immorality of an increasingly godless society.. ..That is the real 
meaning of the attacks on the church.” 

And that is the point that needs to be made when it comes to the 
homosexual legal activists, their allies in the media, and their attack on the 
Catholic Church. It is hypocrisy, pure and simple. While they attack the church 
for the pedophilia scandal, they promote homosexual sex with teenage boys on 
TV programs such as Queer as Folk (see chap. 2). The Knights of Columbus in 
the advertisement we mentioned earlier states: “This same media [that 
promotes homosexuality and pedophilia] has no qualms about unleashing a 
ferocious uproar against the Church, Her doctrine and morals.” 

Chuck Donovan, former vice president of the Family Research Council and 
now president of the Family Action Alliance, also predicted this hypocrisy in the 
media, and from homosexual activists themselves, when he wrote. 

When homosexual activists marched outside of the House of 
Parliament several years ago, they carried signs saying “Stroppy queens 
[obstreperous homosexuals] demand sixteen.” They were demanding, not 
asking, that the age of consent for homosexual relations be lowered to 
sixteen. Tony Blair's government gave in without hesitation. Are we really 
certain that all those 16-year-old boys thus liberated will make mature 
decisions to engage in homosexual relations when invited or pressured by 
older, more powerful, probably richer males? When a priest entices a 16- 
year-old boy, it is truly a scandal. But what will be the press response if a 
British banker, an Oxford don, or a member of the House of Lords seduces 
a teen? I suspect it will be a bemused world-weariness — unless the seducer 
is a prominent Catholic. 

And where does this all lead? To the persecution of the church for taking a 
stand against the problem! In Lexington, Kentucky, three priests who have taken 
a biblical stand on homosexual behavior received threatening letters warning 
them to stop “persecuting homosexual” priests in their diocese. The letters were 
purported to be from “The Gay Priests Association” and stated that one of the 
priests must get “under control and out of the country... That is if you would like 
to continue to receive a salary and keep your life intact.” The priest said he was 
targeted because he teaches “Gospel values and Gospel principles.” One of the 
other priests said to his parishioners, “So many people didn't believe there was a 
gay culture throughout the priesthood, and here it is right here. This is how far 
we have degenerated.” 



125 



Interestingly, the former bishop of Lexington had resigned after three men 
had sued the church and accused him of sexual misconduct. Now these three 
priests are having their lives threatened for taking a biblical stand against the 
very behavior charged that caused the bishop to resign! 

The Price for Taking a Stand 

The reality is that radical homosexual activists and their allies are looking 
for any opportunity to attack and silence any church that takes a biblical stand 
with regard to homosexual behavior, regardless of denomination. The scenario 
being played out against the Catholic Church is just a small part of the 
persecution that many believers and other churches in homosexual enclaves, 
such as San Francisco, face on a daily basis. What these believers are 
experiencing now is a snapshot of what will happen to the church in America if 
it continues to resist the demands of radical homosexual activists. The heat is 
only going to get higher and the temptation to compromise the gospel in face of 
persecution is going to become more attractive. However, if the church fails to 
stand strong in the face of attack, then its very reason to exist (evangelization to 
spread the gospel) is compromised. 

We have already briefly discussed what happened to Focus on the Family 
in the early 1990s after Colorado's Amendment 2 had passed. Craig was 
employed there at the time and can attest to the following: 

• Rocks were frequently thrown through the windows of the ministry's then- 
downtown headquarters. In addition, pink triangles were frequently 
plastered on the walls of the building. 

• Dead-animal parts and a casket were left on the ministry's front door after a 
homosexual teen committed suicide, and homosexual activists blamed his 
death on the passage of Amendment 2 and the “hostile” climate toward 
homosexuals in Colorado. 

• On the light poles in front of the ministry's headquarters and throughout the 
downtown area, flyers were posted, calling for conservative Christians to be 
thrown to the lions. 

• Focus on the Family employees were verbally assaulted in local restaurants 
by homosexual activists and their allies. As a result, employees were told for 
their safety to remove their name tags in public. 

• Homosexual activists played a part in helping launch an expensive, time- 
consuming IRS audit of the ministry, which turned up nothing. 

• Homosexual activists accused the ministry of conducting a witch-hunt 
against homosexual teachers. The rumor was quickly denied by the local 
school district. Despite this, homosexual activists continued to make this 
allegation, with no documentation to support it. 

• Bomb threats were made on a regular basis to the ministry's headquarters. 

• At the dedication of Focus on the Family's new facilities in 1993, a group 
named Lesbian Avengers attempted to stage a kiss-in and remove their tops 
to expose their breasts to the public. Craig was sitting in the same section as 
the Avengers and quickly summoned security before they were successful in 
their protest. The Avengers made sure that their eviction was videotaped and 



126 



then tried to peddle the video to various news outlets. 

• Craig Osten was employed at Focus on the Family 1988-2001 and was an 
assistant to Dr. James Dobson, 1993-2001. He witnessed all of these events 
during his time there. 

Focus on the Family and Dr. James Dobson are not the only ones to 
experience the wrath of angry homosexual activists. Three years ago, at a 
crusade in Charlotte, North Carolina, several homosexual members of the Seigle 
Avenue Presbyterian Church choir walked out in protest after Anne Graham 
Lotz, the daughter of Billy Graham, stated that homosexual behavior is a sin. To 
her credit, Lotz did not back down from her assertion. 

What Focus on the Family experienced in the days after Amendment 2, 
what the Catholic Church is experiencing in the sex abuse scandal, and what 
Anne Graham Lotz experienced at her crusade are only a small sampling of what 
sincere religious believers have faced when they have taken a stand against the 
affirmation of homosexual behavior. For example: 

• Ron Greer, an eighteen-year veteran of the Madison, Wisconsin, fire 
department handed out a tract to his fellow firefighters and friends that 
outlined the biblical position on homosexual behavior. Greer was suspended 
without pay and ordered to attend diversity training. When he refused, he 
was fired. 

• In April 1996, Scott Southworth was scheduled to speak at a Madison, 
Wisconsin, church about homosexual behavior and the Bible. About one 
hour before the speaking event, roughly four hundred to five hundred 
homosexual activists gathered across the street from the church. They 
chanted things (all caught on video) like “Queer mob rule,” “Hey, Hey, Ho, 
Ho, homophobia's got to go,” “Go away,” and “Two-four-sixeight! We don't 
want your Christian hate.” One demonstrator repeatedly yelled, “Bring back 
the lions!” Other protesters carried flags and signs that read “Bigots are 
Perverse,” “Gay Love is Divine,” “Haters — Repent or Perish,” “Hate is Not a 
Family Value,” and “God is Gay — He Loves Men.” Eventually the 
demonstrators found their way into the church and disrupted the entire 
presentation. 

• Orthodox Presbyterian minister Chuck Mcllhenny dismissed his church 
organist when the organist divulged that he was a practicing homosexual. 
The organist sued the church, tying up Mcllhenny in five years of legal 
battles in which he and the church ultimately prevailed. During that time, he 
and his family received death threats, had their residence firebombed, and 
were told by the San Francisco Police Department that there was nothing 
they could do to stop radical homosexual activists from threatening him and 
his family. 

• Eugene Lumpkin was a member of San Francisco's Human Rights 
Commission. He was also the pastor of a local Baptist church. In the June 
23, 1993, issue of the San Francisco Chronicle, Lumpkin expressed his sincere 
religious beliefs about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior. He was 
immediately fired from the commission and was quickly branded a 



127 



homophobe. A pro-homosexual group proclaimed, “It's about time hate- 
spewing Christian priests got their bigoted remarks ‘corrected.’ Let's hope 
this correction serves as a warning to other homophobic religious bigots that 
their intolerance just isn't going to be tolerated.” 

• Also in 1993, the Hamilton Square Baptist Church in San Francisco invited a 
well-known pro-family leader to speak at the church. Radical homosexual 
activists stormed the church doors, pounding on them and screaming, “We 
want your children! Give us your children!” The church experienced a great 
deal of vandalism, and again the San Francisco Police Department said it 
could do nothing to stop the rampaging homosexual activists. Dr. David 
Innes, the senior pastor, was told: “You have to understand, this is San 
Francisco.” 

• Radical homosexual groups in Femdale, Michigan, attempted to have the 
city's police chaplain fired because he expressed the biblical position with 
regard to homosexual behavior. Rev. Tom Hansen of Bethel Missionary 
Church had objected to the city hosting the state's largest annual gaypride 
festival. Erin James, of Mel White's “Soulforce” group, said: “He [Hansen] 
believes the Bible condemns homosexuality.. ..Homosexuality is not a sin and 
not a sickness.” A homosexual resident said: “Rev. Hansen's interpretation of 
the Bible is hurtful and divisive.” 

• U.S. Senator Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), in a speech to the Rainbow Families 
Conference, said religious people who support traditional marriage show 
“only disgust and disdain while they spew hatred and inhumanity.” He 
continued, “Jesus Christ didn't say, ‘Love only thy opposite-sex neighbors.’ 
Christ was silent on homosexuality even as he repeatedly condemned 
adultery and divorce.” A group of pastors immediately sought an apology 
from the Senator, writing, “We are grieved by your name-calling of those who 
hold to a traditional view of marriage and we believe you owe the people of 
Minnesota a public apology for your harsh and intemperate attacks on 
people seeking to uphold basic Christian beliefs. You also stated that Jesus 
was silent on homosexuality. Jesus was also silent on rape and incest but we 
are not to interpret the lack of recorded comments as approval of such 
behaviors. Both the Old and New Testaments condemned homosexual 
behavior and Christians are obligated to uphold the Scriptures' teaching.” 

• Two men were arrested in Dayton, Tennessee, for attempting to assemble 
two large wooden crosses during the city's “Gay Day” gathering. They were 
cited for disorderly conduct. One of the men, Michael Siemer, said, “This is 
the first time I've been arrested for being a Christian.” The two men were 
standing across the freeway from the park where the “Gay Day” event was 
being held. 

• On April 28, 2004, the Canadian Parliament passed Bill C-250, which could 
make certain portions of the Bible that deal with homosexual behavior be 
classified as “hate speech” with criminal penalties. The Canadian Bible 
Society put out repeated warnings that the bill could have a chilling effect on 
religious freedom and evangelism in Canada. Janet Epp of the Buckingham 
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada said, “Pastors are afraid. They're afraid to 
preach on this subject. Nobody wants to have the police come to the 
door.” The bill, which added “sexual orientation” to Canada's hate- 



128 



propaganda law, passed by a vote of 59-11. The bill reads, “Every one, who 
by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully 
promotes hatred against an identifiable group, is guilty of an indictable 
offense and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.” 
Meanwhile, the author of the bill, openly homosexual Svend Robinson has 
stepped down after video surveillance cameras caught him stealing a 
$50,000 ring from an auction house. 

• When Christians met at a Calgary, Alberta, hotel to discuss the bill's 
implications, they were interrupted by a group called the “Gay Militia.” The 
homosexuals beat sticks together, roared slogans, and drowned out a speech 
by Rev. Tristan Emmanuel on the increasing hostility to Christians. The 
homosexual men ignored both meeting organizers and hotel security 
personnel who asked them to leave. “Haters!” screamed the protesters. 
“Bigots!... what you are doing is a hate crime!” 

• An openly homosexual Canadian senator, Laurier L. LaPierre, sent an e-mail 
back to individuals who opposed C-250: “God! You people are sick. God 
should strike you dead! In a book [the Bible] that is supposed (sic) to speak 
of love and you find passages of hatred: You should be ashamed of yourself 
for reading such books!... If your god teaches you to hate and judge, then get 
another god.” The senator did somewhat apologize, saying, “On February 7 I 
answered some e-mails in a less than Senatorial manner. I am apologizing for 
my vitriolic answers to two e-mails. [I] mistakenly let out months of 
frustration.” 

• Officials in the Canadian province of Ontario fined a Christian mayor 
$10,000 for refusing to proclaim “Gay Pride Day” in his city. A Christian 
businessman was fined $5,000 for refusing to print materials for a 
homosexual rights group. Attorney Bruce Long, writing in the March 2004 
issue of Church Law Bulletin, said, “Churches and religious institutions may 
want to consider... avoiding public criticisms of identifiable groups... limiting 
opinions to private conversations, and if targeted or investigated, rely on the 
constitutional right to remain silent.” 

• In England, an elderly evangelical Christian, who had been repeatedly 
assaulted for speaking out against homosexual behavior, was ruled to have 
been “properly convicted” by the British High Court of “breaching the 
peace.” The sixty-nineyear-old man, who had passed away before the final 
judgment was rendered, had been fined 300 British pounds (approximately 
$550 American dollars) by a lower court for simply holding a sign that read 
“Stop Immorality. Stop Homosexuality. Stop Lesbianism” and featured a 
reference to Jesus. Despite the fact that the man had been repeatedly 
physically assaulted, the high court judges ruled that the restriction on 
Hammond's right to free expression was justified under the European 
Convention on Human Rights. 

• Back in the United States, the Canyon Ferry Road Baptist Church in Helena, 
Montana, hosted a closed-circuit presentation of a rally to support the 
proposed Federal Marriage Amendment that was held in Colorado Springs. 
During the rally, petitions were circulated asking state legislators to place a 
constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage on the Montana 
ballot — an activity that churches can legally engage in without jeopardizing 



129 



their tax-exempt status. Homosexual rights groups and their allies 
complained that the church had not filed the “proper paperwork” and should 
have its tax-exempt status revoked as well as pay a stiff fine. An ADF allied 
attorney — working with ADF staff counsel Gary McCaleb — has intervened 
legally on the church's behalf. 

* The Mcllhennys' long struggle against radical homosexual activists is 
chronicled in the book When the Wicked Seize a City by Pastor Mcllhenny and 
Frank York (Huntington House Publishers). 

t A tape of the homosexual protesters later aired on Focus on the Family and is 
still available through that ministry. 

* In appendix 2 of this book, we include a letter from ADF staff counsel Gary 
McCaleb on what churches can legally do with regard to public policy matters 
without jeopardizing their tax-exempt, non-profit status. 

This last item is something that many are warning will happen when 
evangelical churches refuse to perform same-sex “marriages.” Raymond Flynn, a 
former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican (appointed by President Clinton) and 
mayor of Boston, believes that there is a “distinct possibility” that homosexual 
activists will try to force churches to redefine religious marriage or lose their 
tax-exempt, nonprofit status. Flynn says, “The issue of legalizing same-sex 
marriages in Massachusetts and California raises the question: Does this mean 
there will be cases brought against the Catholic Church for discrimination? I 
think it is the next step.” 

Allan Carlson, president of the pro-family Howard Center and a 
distinguished fellow with the Family Research Council, adds, “I think there's 
vulnerability [to the tax-exempt status] there. If samesex marriage is determined 
to be a fundamental human right, would churches still be allowed to ban such 
things and also claim a tax exemption? I don't know.” 

t In appendix 1, we provide a detailed examination of how the U.S. Supreme 
Court's decision in the Bob Jones University case could conceivably be used by 
homosexual activists and their legal allies to revoke the tax-exempt status of 
churches that engage in “discrimination.” 

Nowhere is the fight for religious freedom more evident than in the assault 
of radical homosexual activists upon the church. Radical homosexual activists 
will not be satisfied until the church either becomes an advocate for their 
behavior, as we have seen in the Church of England and Marjorie Munger's 
church, or is silenced by intimidation or legal action — as we have seen in 
Canada. Some activists will exploit anything (as we have seen in the Catholic 
Church scandal) to achieve their aims. The ultimate goal is to not only restrict, 
but also to punish any speech that does not affirm homosexual behavior. As 
Cathy Renna of the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation put it, “People 
often get their views from their religions, so we don't want the pulpit saying 
that gay is wrong.” 

Renna is right on one point. It is religious belief that plays a major 
determining role in the acceptance of homosexual behavior. A 2004 Pew 



130 



Research Center poll found that while 55 percent of Americans believe 
homosexual behavior is sinful, 76 percent of individuals with a high religious 
commitment believe so. Individuals with high religious commitment oppose 
same-sex “marriage” by more than a 6-1 margin. That is why the silencing — or 
as we discussed earlier — the spiritual apathy of the church is so essential to the 
fulfillment of the homosexual agenda. 

To take a look at what possibly awaits for the church, we need look no 
further than the past. As we stated in the first chapter, the radical homosexual 
activist community has adopted many of the techniques used in Nazi Germany. 

The Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion recently published an article that 
summarized several documents from the World War II era. One of these 
documents was “The Persecution of Christian Churches” by the Office of 
Strategic Services (OSS), the intelligence agency that had been set up in World 
War II to spy on Germany and its allies. 

The report reads as follows: “The Nazis believed that the churches could be 
starved and strangled spiritually in a relatively short time when they were 
deprived of all means of communication with the faithful beyond the church 
building.” 

Chuck Donovan, whose father served in the OSS, writes about what 
happened in Nazi Germany: 

At first Nazi leadership feigned a desire for peace with Christian 
churches through the Concordat of 1933 with the Catholic Church and 
pledging to honor the freedom of Protestant churches, so long as the 
churches gave up their involvement in political issues. Then the Nazis 
began tightening the screws. “Under the pretext that the Churches 
themselves were interfering in political and state matters, the [Nazis] 
would deprive the Churches step by step, of all opportunity to affect 
German public life. 



Breaking the back of Christianity in Germany was aimed at cutting off 
the education and formation of the rising generation from its heritage of 
faith [eerily similar to what is happening in government schools today]. As 
extreme as these goals seemed then, capturing youth and pressuring the 
Church to abandon its witness in the public square are almost universal 
phenomena now. 



The assault on religious freedom also extends beyond the church walls to 
individual believers in the workplace and religious organizations that do not 
accept and embrace homosexual behavior. If intimidation does not work, 
homosexual activists are willing to unleash the power of federal, state, and local 
governments to cow the church and believers into silence, just as Kirk and 
Madsen advocated back in the late 1980s. 



And once the church is silenced on the sexual behavior issue, it will not 
take long before it is silenced on many other issues. Already in Canada, 
churches and other religious organizations cannot speak out on homosexual 
behavior for fear of finding themselves in violation of hate-crime laws. If 



131 




speaking out against homosexual behavior is considered “hate,” then what 
about other sexual behavior now called sin, such as adultery? Without moral 
authority, the church in the United States will become like so many are now in 
Europe, museum pieces from an era long, long ago. The result will be tragic for 
the millions of individuals who will be unable to hear and respond to the gospel 
— the good news of Jesus Christ — because the church may no longer be allowed 
to proclaim it. 

Let's conclude again with the story of Lot. 



The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting 
in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got tip to meet them 
and bowed down with his face to the ground. “My lords,” he said, 
“please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and 
spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning. ” “No, ” 
they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.” But he insisted 
so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. 

He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and 
they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all of the men from every part 
of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. 

They called to Lot, “ Where are the men who came to you tonight? 

Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” 

Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, 
“No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.” [emphasis ours] 

— Genesis 19:1-7 



From being forbidden by God to enter the city, to sitting in a place of 
authority there, to calling sexual activists his friends. Lot's behavior was not 
unlike all too many people of faith today. 



132 



CHAPTER SEVEN 



The Seduction of Corporate America 



In many regards, the workplace is the leading edge of change for the 
GLBT [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender] community. 
Company CEOs and executives can often wield more power than 
state and local officials in creating significant changes that affect 
their employees' lives. They can enact new policies with the approval 
of a few board members rather than thousands or even millions of 
voters. . . .Through the enactment of DP (domestic partner) 
benefits, employers send the message that all employees, 
including GLBT workers, are valued and accepted as equal, 
whichpaves the way for more employees to come out. 

—National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Organizing Manual 



Betty Sabatino was an employee for a San Antonio bank. One day, she was 
ordered to attend a session on “fair employment practices.” During a question- 
and-answer portion of the program, billed as being a “safe zone” and open to all 
questions, she inquired as to why the company would provide special 
considerations for employees based on their sexual behavior. After the session 
was over, her boss approached her and expressed “concern” about her question. 
A few weeks later, she was fired because of “management's loss of confidence” 
in her. 

In Hollywood, California, two homosexual employees stopped near the 
desk of an Orthodox Jewish employee and proceeded to have a graphic 
discussion of the homosexual pornographic films one of them had seen. The 
Orthodox Jew asked the two men to stop and they refused. When he voiced his 
concern to the company's human relations department, he was told it was his 
problem that he disapproved of the men's sexual orientation and he should 
“lighten up.” 

These are just two examples of what has happened to individuals who 
object to the promotion of homosexual behavior in the workplace. Yet, they are 
a microcosm of how some in corporate America have embraced the homosexual 
agenda, and allowed radical homosexual activists to silence, and in some cases, 
fire, those who do not bow at the altar of so-called tolerance. 

Radical homosexual activists have adapted numerous strategies to push 
their agenda through corporations and marginalize and intimidate those who 
would object. 

Did you know that 213 companies out of the Fortune 500 now offer 



133 



domestic -partner benefits, including 82 percent of the Fortune 50? And yet, 
despite these numbers, many corporate leaders have no idea what the 
enactment of these policies of financial subsidy really mean for their companies 
and for society as a whole. In addition, many of these corporate leaders are also 
not doing this on their own initiative; they are being forced to — by local laws 
and unrelenting pressure from radical homosexual activists. Others are doing so 
because they see a potential gold mine waiting to be tapped — the homosexual 
community, a community mostly without children and with large disposable 
incomes. 

By pressuring corporations to accept their agenda and adopt domestic- 
partner benefits, homosexual legal activists hope to succeed in their goal to 
redefine marriage and the family. Nowhere is this better explained than in this 
statement from the organizing manual of the National Gay and Lesbian Task 
Force: “[An ideal policy would cover] a wide range of family types. If possible, 
an employer should offer benefits to same-and-opposite sex couples, both 
romantic and non-romantic, as well as the partner's children. By crafting an 
inclusive policy such as this, the employer allows the employee to define his or her 
own family and responds to the family's needs. Moreover, an inclusive policy is 
more flexible and can adapt to employee family structures as they continue to 
change. ’’[emphasis ours] 

The key phrase in this statement is “the employer allows the employee to 
define his or her own family.” That line shows the ultimate objective of radical 
homosexual activists: to use corporate America to advance their agenda of 
rejecting God's definition of the family and replacing it with one of their own, 
whether it be with three mommies, two daddies, or whatever arrangement they 
can devise. 

If this were not enough, domestic -partner policies open up the door to 
fraud and deceit. New York Magazine reported that a number of “straight” 
individuals without health insurance are now claiming to be domestic partners 
with friends who work for companies that offer these benefits. In the words of 
one executive assistant, “All we had to do was swear we were in a committed 
relationship. They didn't ask for any proof or anything.” One human relations 
employee stated that a man tried to register his cat as a domestic partner. The 
paperwork had already been submitted to the insurance company by the 
employer before the ruse was realized. 

To achieve these aims, the activists have adopted a strategy that pressures 
corporations from various directions. Whether it is through local government 
ordinances, shareholder resolutions, collective bargaining, or one-on-one 
meetings with management, homosexual activists are attacking on all fronts to 
achieve their goals. Again, they will keep coming back time and time again to 
wear down corporate decision makers. This strategy can be best summed up in 
an advertisement placed by IBM in support of a gay, lesbian, bisexual, 
transgendered leadership conference in Seattle, Washington, in 2000. Quoting 
Samuel Jackson, the ad states: “Great works are performed not by strength but 
by perseverance.” 

The effort to get corporations on board with the homosexual agenda is a 



134 



multipronged strategy. According to the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force 
organizing manual, the first step is the establishment of a GLBT employee 
group: “Before starting to work on specific issues in the workplace, it is 
important to form an employee organization to identify needs, operate with [a] 
common cause, and link employees who are interested in working for change. 
Even if it is not possible to form an official group of GLBT employees, it is 
valuable [to] create an informal unofficial group from which the organizing 
efforts can be launched.” 

The Foot in the Door 

The second step in the homosexual activist strategy is for corporations to 
adopt a sexual-orientation policy. Although often presented as an urgently 
needed policy to stop egregious discrimination, the NGLTF manual readily 
admits that getting corporations to change their anti-discrimination policies and 
to provide domestic partners benefits is just the beginning of their campaign for 
their eventual goal of same-sex marriage and beyond. Yet at public shareholder 
meetings, activists publically and deceitfully claim that all they want is a limited 
anti-bias policy. At the annual meeting of Emerson Electric, for instance, 
homosexual activists stated that having a sexual-orientation policy does “not 
require the company to offer equal benefits to partners of gay employees.” 
However, this statement contradicts the strategy as outlined in the NGLTF 
training manual, which reads as follows: “Before attempting to get domestic 
partner benefits from your employer, it is imperative that the company's non- 
discrimination policy include sexual orientation. ...Inclusion in a company's 
employment equal opportunity (EEO) policies also implies inclusion in any of 
its diversity programs, which provide many opportunities for educational work 
and involvement in policy making decisions. ...A common rationale for 
establishing domestic partner benefits is that the failure to do so is 
contradictory to a nondiscrimination clause.” 

After reading this statement it is fairly obvious that the addition of sexual 
orientation to company anti-discrimination policies is the Trojan horse that 
leads to domestic -partner benefits, contrary to assertions made relating to the 
Emerson Electric shareholders meeting. 



Many mainstream corporations actively seek this [ homosexual ] audience in their marketing 
and advertising for products from beer to liquor to life insurance, and depict openly gay and 
lesbian relationships. Further, an increasing number of major corporations are openly 
depicting non-traditional sexual activities in traditional advertisements and including 
elements of fetish attire and dominance and submission role-playing between adults. 

—Judy Guerin, executive director, National Coalition for Sexual Freedom 



This leads to the third step: domestic partner benefits. And, if corporations 
don't voluntarily offer domestic -partner benefits, they are increasingly forced by 
cities and municipalities with large homosexual communities to do so. In 1996, 
the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance that required all 



135 



companies that do business with the city and county to offer domestic-partner 
benefits to their employees. Because of this ordinance, thousands of 
corporations have chosen to offer domestic -partner benefits rather than risk 
closing their businesses in one of the top five population markets in the United 
States. Corporations caved into homosexual activist demands not because of 
social concerns, but because of economic ones. Without the influence of this 
ordinance, the overall growth in domestic-partner benefits would be much less. 
According to the Human Rights Campaign, of the 4,285 companies that adopted 
domestic -partner benefit policies, 3,087 had done so because of the San 
Francisco ordinance. 

(A brief side note: A homosexual newspaper disclosed on March 7, 2003, 
that nearly three years ago (in 2001), the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 
a champion of domestic partner policies, actually tried to cut domestic partner 
benefits for its own employees! NGLTF said that the policies were “prohibitively 
expensive” but compromised by paying 50 percent after negotiations with the 
staffE Yet, on its own Web site, NGLTF denies that these benefits will cost 
employers too much money. The site reads: “The most common reason cited by 
companies who do not implement domestic partner benefits is the perception 
that to do so would be cost prohibitive. ..these concerns are baseless. ...If a 
company cares about its employees and about the values of fairness and non- 
discrimination, it should treat all employees equitably, no matter the price 
tag.” ) 

Radical homosexual activists are now claiming that since corporate 
America has embraced domestic -partner policies (involuntarily in most cases), 
even though their statistics only show 4,285 out of 5 million corporations have 
adopted such policies, it is time for local, state, and federal governments to do 
so as well. This is despite the fact that it was compliance with a local ordinance 
that caused the dramatic growth in corporate domestic -partner policies to begin 
with! 

The Alliance Defense Fund supported a case to challenge the San Francisco 
ordinance. It involves S. D. Myers, a small Christian company that operates 
out of Ohio and has sold electrical transformers as low bidder to San Francisco 
for years. With ADF's help, Myers challenged the ordinance on state and federal 
constitutional grounds in the United States District Court in Oakland, California. 
Unfortunately, the court ruled against Myers, and it appealed to the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals, where it lost again. The court ruled that the city and 
county ordinance did not place an “undue burden” on interstate commerce in 
violation of the federal constitution's commerce and due process clauses. While 
this case has been lost at the Court of Appeals level, it is now pending before 
the United States Supreme Court for possible review. 

“Safe Spaces” (Except for Those Who Disagree) 

The fourth step for homosexual activists is to then use corporate 
employment policies to promote homosexual behavior and stigmatize, isolate, 
and silence any employees who may express opposition to such behavior. The 
most vivid example of this is the “Safe Spaces” programs at Lucent and Xerox. 



136 



(Unfortunately, the Orthodox Jewish man mentioned earlier was not allowed to 
have a safe space to have his beliefs respected.) 

These programs encourage employees to display a sign that designates their 
work areas as safe spaces where individuals can talk openly (in a positive 
manner) about homosexual behavior. The flyer promoting this program tells 
employees how they can be supportive of gay people. It reads as follows: 

• “Don't assume everyone is heterosexual.” 

• “Don't permit homophobic jokes or comments.” [Since expressing one's 
biblically held beliefs on homosexual behavior has been labeled homophobia 
by radical homosexual activists, this is effectively calling for the censorship 
of religious speech.] 

• “Treat the subject in a positive way.” 

• “Use inclusive language (partner or significant other)” and “Respect the 
privacy of the individual.” [Only speech that affirms homosexual behavior is 
approved, and thus the gospel is silenced. Sadly, people like Betty Sabatino 
find themselves out of a job if they object to the promotion of homosexual 
behavior.] 

The sign goes on to say, “Remember, most gay people remain completely or 
partially closeted within the work environment for various reasons including 
fear of rejection and lack of acceptance. Even though you may be supportive of 
your lesbian and gay coworkers, making them comfortable with you is more 
important than asking if they are gay. Displaying the ‘Safe Space’ emblem is a 
great way to start!” 

The sign consists of a bright pink triangle, the symbol that has been 
adopted by the homosexual activist movement to symbolize its cause. Of 
course, this program also can be used to identify and stigmatize those who do 
not agree with homosexual behavior, since individuals who do not display the 
sign can be easily targeted. 

• According to homosexual activists, the pink triangle was used by Nazi 
Germany to identify homosexuals who were rounded up and sent to 
concentration camps. Their history ignores the role of homosexuals in top 
positions in Hitler's regime. 

In the final steps the manual discusses how to enlist corporations in the 
public relations effort by homosexual activists to link homosexual behavior with 
civil rights: “Companies should clearly express to employees, consumers, and 
the community that domestic partner benefits are not special rights; they are 
equal rights. ...The company is recognizing diversity and acknowledging the 
needs of all of its employees within that framework; all of its employees are 
equal and therefore all relationships are also equal.” And “[Domestic partner] 
benefits are not the final step in the GLBT [Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender] 
quest for equality, but they are integral to its achievement.” 

“Diversity” Training 



137 



Another way that religious freedom is threatened in the workplace is 
through “diversity training” sessions for employees in which biblical beliefs on 
homosexual behavior and marriage are openly ridiculed. Brian McNaught, who 
is considered the diversity guru and conducts workshops for AT&T, has written, 
“There are people who believe that homosexual behavior is forbidden by the 
Bible. This too is a personal belief.” With regard to marriage, he has said, 
“Heterosexist language can be changed. We can say, for instance, partner or 
significant other rather than spouse. We can say, ‘Are you in a relationship?’ 
rather than ‘Are you married?’” This ties into the statement from the National 
Gay and Lesbian Task Force organizing manual that all relationships must be 
perceived on equal footing with marriage, therefore devaluing marriage and 
exalting alternative lifestyles. 

Diversity training is also used to spread misleading or untruthful statistics 
with regard to homosexual behavior. At one such “diversity” training session at 
American Express, employees were told that 11 percent of the population is 
homosexual, despite the fact that no credible study has shown the percentage 
of homosexuals to be above 2 to 4 percent of the population. 

Homosexual Dollars Equal Corporate Support 

The fourth step is to get corporate America to financially support radical 
homosexual activism. The activists have achieved this with surprising ease. 

Why has corporate America been such an easy target for homosexual 
activists to push their agenda? One of the main reasons is that the homosexual 
community has a much higher level of disposable income than most families, 
and therefore in order to tap that market, many corporations have gone 
overboard in their willingness to bow to the demands of radical homosexual 
activists. In addition, homosexual activists, with the aid of the media, have 
become so adept at demonizing any corporation that does not give in to their 
agenda that most companies quietly cower at their feet rather than face the 
public relations wrath of the activists. 

* A study released by Simmons Research in 2000 found the average income of 
gay and lesbian households to be $85,000, more than twice the national 
average. According to a Syracuse University/Opus Comm Group/G Society study 
released in October 2001, the median household income of homosexual 
households is $65,000 — nearly 60 percent higher than the national average of 
$40,800. More than a fifth of the respondents in the Syracuse study reported a 
household income of $ 100,000 or above, while nearly 60 percent of 
homosexual male households and 46 percent of lesbian households reported 
income in excess of $ 60,000 . According to Simmons Research, 59 percent of 
gay and lesbian consumers buy “whatever they want.” The homosexual market 
is estimated to be in the range of $250-$350 billion. Finally, 62 percent of 
homosexual men and 59 percent of lesbians are college graduates, and 47 
percent of homosexual men and 40 percent of lesbians hold professional or 
managerial jobs — more than twice the figure for the general population. What is 
interesting is that homosexuals deny these demographics when they are 
mentioned in the context of anti-discrimination, but then trumpet them when 



138 



they are convincing corporations to cater to them. 



One example of this is the number of corporations that support radical 
homosexual training conferences. One such conference is the “Out and Equal 
Leadership Summit,” held on an annual basis to develop strategies to push the 
homosexual agenda on corporations. The following were listed among the 2004 
conference sponsors: 



• American Airlines 
•NCR 

• IBM 

• Eastman Kodak 

• Chubb Insurance Group 

• JP Morgan Chase & Co. 

• Motorola 

• Ford Motor Company 

• SC Johnson 

• Shell Oil 

• Walt Disney World 

• Aetna 

• Agilent Technologies 

• American Express 

• Bank One 



Best Buy 

California State Automobile 
Cargill Inc. 

Charles Schwab & Co. 
Chevron/Texaco 
Daimler Chrysler 
Cingular Wireless 
Coors Brewing Co. 

Dell Computers 

E-Trade 

Fleet 

General Mills 
General Motors 
Hewlett-Packard 
IBM 



• Intel Corp. 

• Kaiser Permamente 

• Lucent Technologies 

• Microsoft 

• Proctor and Gamble 

• Prudential Financial 

• Qwest 

• Raytheon 

• Sun Microsystems 

• Target 

• Boeing 

• United Airlines 

• Verizon 

• Wells Fargo ank 

• Whirlpool 

• Xerox 



The Ford Foundation has provided grants to the Gill Foundation (which 
promotes homosexual causes in Colorado), the National Gay and Lesbian Task 
Force, International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, National 
Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute, and the Lambda Legal Defense 
and Education Fund, which is the largest legal advocate for same-sex marriage 
in the United States. 



The Human Rights Campaign, which bills itself as the “largest lobbying 
group for gay and lesbian rights in the United States,” lists American Airlines, 
Volvo, IBM, Washington Mutual, Cingular Wireless, Nike, John Hancock, 
Coors, and Capital One among the corporate sponsors on the HRC Web site. 

* Volvo ran an ad in homosexual publications that depicted a homosexual 
couple with a baby and a pregnant lesbian. The ad had the tagline “Whether 
you're starting a family or creating one as you go. ..Volvo. For life.” 

Catering to the Homosexual Market 



Corporations have also been lining up to advertise in homosexual 
publications and to publish and air advertisements sympathetic to the 
homosexual agenda. This ties into a strategy of using corporate America to 
soften up Americans for acceptance of homosexual behavior. 

Joe Landry, publisher of Out and The Advocate, says “Lots of companies are 
adding diversity marketing to their budgets, which used to mean money for 
advertising mainly to blacks and Hispanics, but now it's meant largely, and 



139 



sometimes mainly, for gay and lesbian customers.” 

In fact, from 1997 to 1999, advertising in gay publications went up 20.2 
percent, to $120.4 million. This does not include homosexual-themed 
advertisements in other media. 

And corporations eager for homosexual dollars have been able to pursue a 
marketing strategy aimed at those who practice homosexual behavior without 
much backlash. Bob Witeck of Witeck-Combs Communications says, “I think 
we're near a tipping point. Backlash against such [homosexual] advertising has 
dropped and there's a higher comfort level. I see more evidence of that all the 
time.” 

Homosexual activists demand more than just advertising directed toward 
them, they demand total support for their agenda A Human Rights Campaign 
survey found that “seventy-two percent of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and 
transgender consumers said it was important for ‘companies who advertise to 
the GLBT community to demonstrate effective corporate citizenship by 
supporting their causes.’” 

During the 2000 Summer Olympics, the John Hancock Financial Services 
deliberately marketed itself to the homosexual community and it appeared they 
did just as the radical activists demanded: The advertisement showed total 
support for their agenda. One commercial featured two women holding a 
newborn Chinese baby and telling each other what wonderful mothers they will 
both make. The ad ended with the tag line “We are family.” Obviously, the 
viewer could assume the women were open lesbians. It was only after adoption 
groups expressed concern that the Chinese government would forbid future 
adoptions of children since one of the conditions of such adoptions was that 
they be to two-parent, heterosexual homes, did John Hancock alter the 
commercial. How did John Hancock alter it? By changing the nationality of the 
baby from Chinese to Cambodian! 

Subaru has also been a major marketer to the homosexual community and 
proudly states that it is the number-one choice of lesbian households. In 
addition, Subaru has used a homosexual ad agency to promote its product. To 
ensure the continued support from the lesbian community, Subaru's national 
advertising campaign features lesbian tennis star Martina Navratilova and 
includes the slogan “It's not a choice. It's the way we're built.” The 
implication is fairly obvious. 

The airline industry, particularly American Airlines and United Airlines, has 
been a big supporter of the homosexual agenda. For American, the lure of 
homosexual travel dollars is too enticing to pass up. American spokesman Tim 
Kinkaid says, “We're doing this for a great business reason. It's been very 
rewarding to us. We've made millions of dollars over the years simply by 
reaching out to this community and acknowledging that they are important to 
us.. ..There was a negative reaction from conservative religious organizations, 
but every other airline is doing it now....” 

For United Airlines, the issue has been damage control with homosexual 



140 



activists. After the 1996 San Francisco ordinance was passed. United initially 
balked at providing domestic-partner benefits and became the target of 
blistering attacks from radical homosexual activists and their friends in the 
media. San Francisco International Airport is the airline's West Coast hub, and 
United controls a large number of gates there. After it became evident that the 
city might be willing to boot the largest leaser of gates from its airport rather 
than relent on the ordinance. United not only caved in, but in order to prove 
itself to the homosexual community, became a full-fledged supporter of 
homosexual organizations. 

For example, the summer 2000 update from the Lambda Legal Defense and 
Education Fund reported on the corporate largesse of United: “Lambda has 
forged a new three-year partnership with United Airlines.. ..Valued at over 
$300,000, it is the largest corporate sponsorship in Lambda's history to date. 
The benefits of this new strategic alliance includes underwriting of all staff air 
travel for Lambda for the next three years, round trip tickets to be used as prizes 
at Lambda events, discount coupons for event attendees, and special travel to 
Liberty and Partner Circle donors and new Lambda members.” 

Can you imagine the uproar in the media and from radical homosexual 
activists if, for example. Delta Airlines gave three years of free flights, discounts, 
and so forth to Focus on the Family or to the First Baptist Church to oppose 
Lambda's agenda? Delta would probably be picketed and skewered on CNN, 
MSNBC, and the New York Times editorial page for providing support to an 
“extremist” agenda. Yet no one blinks an eye when United Airlines provides free 
travel to radical homosexual activists, especially in light of the government 
bailout of the airline industry after the events of September 11, 2001. As Tim 
Kinkaid of American Airlines said, the opinion of religious conservatives does 
not frighten airlines at all. However, if a radical homosexual group raises one 
little objection, they quake in fear and give in to every one of its demands. 

* The total amount set aside by the federal government to bail out the airlines 
was $15 billion. According to the airline industry, they lost $7.7 billion in 2001. 
Meanwhile, they are providing free travel to homosexual activists. United 
Airlines' application for a federal loan in 2002 was rejected, and the company 
has declared Chapter 1 1 bankruptcy. 

t For more information on how corporations can stand up to the demands of 
homosexual activists and promote pro-family policies, see 
www.communityresourcecouncil.org. 

The WNBA — Targeting the Lesbian Market 

Professional sports have also made efforts to tap into the homosexual 
financial gold mine. The Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA) has 
deliberately marketed itself to lesbians. In fact, it has been estimated that 30 
percent of the WNBA's fan base is lesbian. WNBA president Val Ackerman 
said, “We welcome any fan who wants to come out and support our sport. We 
have a broad range of fans. ...To the extent that members of the lesbian 
community are indicating their support, I think that's terrific.” 



141 



The WNBA has a working relationship with the Human Rights Campaign. 
After the Washington Mystics home opener a few years ago, HRC hosted a post- 
game party attended by more than seven hundred lesbians and supporters, 
including the Mystics general manager and other league officials. At the party, 
the head of the Seattle Storm and the director of development for the WNBA 
publicly came out. 

The Mystics are also regularly frequented by the Lesbian Avengers (whose 
logo is an exploding bomb), a group that stages kiss-ins and demonstrations at 
which participants remove their tops in public. They include protests in front of 
the Family Research Council (which is across the street from the MCI Center 
where the Mystics play) before going to the game. 

Other WNBA teams besides the Mystics deliberately market themselves to 
lesbians. Karen Bryant, vice president of operations for the Seattle Storm, says, 
“Lesbians have been a strong core group of our fans in this town.” Kat Fox, 
spokeswoman for the “Davis Dykes” (the name of a lesbian organization in 
Davis, California) and a season-ticket holder for the Sacramento Monarchs, said, 
“Lesbians have been the WNBA fan base since 1997. We're saying our money is 
the same as the traditional family money.... [The WNBA] needs the money, and 
their marketing efforts are brilliant if they target the lesbians.” 

What would be the reaction if a sports league specifically targeted people 
who go to church? It would probably result in a lawsuit. In fact, such a scenario 
took place a few years ago when an atheist, with the help of the ACLU, sued a 
minor-league baseball team that provided discount tickets for a Sunday 
afternoon ball game if they were presented with a church bulletin. ADF was 
involved in the defense of the team's right to hold such a promotion, and a 
compromise was reached that allowed the team to continue the promotion as 
long as programs from civic or non-profit groups were included as well. 

The WNBA's Los Angeles Sparks held events at the popular Los Angeles 
lesbian “Girl Bar” to help spur season ticket sales and game attendance. Sparks 
players provided autographs, and the fans bought Sparks pennants, notebooks, 
basketballs, and season-ticket packages. The Miami Sol had already appeared at 
lesbian bars and events more than two years earlier, and the Phoenix Mercury 
proudly acknowledged its marketing efforts to the lesbian community. 

The Phoenix Suns basketball team, which owns the Mercury, dropped the 
pro-family Center for Arizona Policy as sponsor of its “Church Night” promotion 
after homosexual activists complained about the Center's opposition to same- 
sex “marriage” and other prohomosexual initiatives supporting homosexual 
behavior. Tom Ambrose, a team vice president, said that the Center's 
sponsorship was “problematic” because the Mercury had cultivated a large 
lesbian fan base. According to media reports, homosexual activists joined with 
pro-homosexual churches to get the Center booted from the church night 
promotion. 

* At the time of this incident, the Suns general managing partner was a 
prominent evangelical Christian in the Phoenix community. 



142 



So, the next time your daughter asks you to take her to a WNBA game, you 
might want to consider the influences she might be exposed to there. 

Welcome to the Gay Riviera 

The travel industry has also cast a covetous eye toward the income 
demographics of the homosexual community. The homosexual travel market is 
estimated at $54 million a year. Miami-Dade County has prepared a twenty- 
page brochure that features maps and information about hotels, shopping, and 
special events of interest to homosexual tourists. The pamphlet proudly 
proclaims, “Our ‘gay’ friendly environment extends beyond our local businesses 
to our government officials and policies. Come and see why Greater Miami is 
truly the gay Riviera.” Fodor's has produced the “gay guide” to America as 
well. Nicki Grossman of the Great Fort Lauderdale Visitors Bureau said, “You 
can't ignore the kind of spending that gay and lesbian travelers do.” 

The city of Atlanta created an entire advertising campaign catered to 
homosexual tourists. Caroline Wilbert wrote in the Atlanta JournaL-Constitution, 
“The thinking goes: Gay people, many of whom don't have children, have 
disposable income. So let's get them to spend it here.” The Web site 
promoting the campaign — gayatlanta.com — features the slogan, “We're out to 
show you a good time.” The city spent $55,000 on the campaign. 

In November 2003, the city of Philadelphia announced its new $300,000 
“gay travel” promotion — which included images of Ben Franklin (who is shown 
flying a rainbow kite), Betsy Ross, and George Washington. The campaign mixes 
the historical figures with rainbow banners and features the tagline “Get your 
history straight and your nightlife gay.” The campaign calls Philadelphia the 
“city of brotherly love and sisterly attraction.” 

That's just the beginning. It gets worse. The first Philadelphia spot to air 
featured a man in Colonial dress waiting by Independence Hall, holding a 
bouquet of flowers. He has just finished writing a letter to his “dearest 
beloved.” An attractive young female walks by and makes a flirtatious overture 
toward him. The man quickly rejects her and hands the flowers to his male lover 
instead. 

Washington, D.C., also launched a homosexual ad campaign with the 
slogan “Where More Than Just the Cherry Blossoms Come Out.” 

Community Marketing, a San Francisco firm that helps the travel industry 
reach homosexual consumers, sums up the motivation of corporations and 
tourist destinations to market to “oppressed” homosexual travelers in the 
following demographic information: 

• Took vacation in the last 12 months: all travelers: 64 percent; gay travelers: 
85 percent. 

• Took an international vacation in the last 12 months: all travelers: 9 percent; 
gay travelers: 45 percent. 

• Hold a valid passport: all travelers: 29 percent; gay travelers: 78 percent. 



143 



• Belong to a frequent flyer program: all travelers: 25 percent; gay travelers: 64 
percent 

• Seventy-five percent of gay and lesbian households have incomes over the 
$40,000 national average. 

Thomas Roth, the president of Community Marketing said, “It boils down 
to two things: dual income and no kids. People with money and no 
responsibility for kids have two spending priorities — shopping and travel. When 
you start adding up the comparisons, you see why tourist offices and CVBs 
(convention visitors bureaus) are interested in reaching out to the gay 
market.” 

The homosexual dollar is so powerful that corporations and destinations 
that were once the epitome of family values have now openly marketed 
themselves to the homosexual community. 

If you ever plan a trip to Disney World in Orlando, Florida, here is one 
word of advice: don't go the first weekend in June. Why? That weekend is the 
annual Gay Days in the land of Mickey, Donald, and Goofy. While Disney states 
it does not sponsor gay days, it has done little to deter them and much to 
encourage them. 

Gay days started in 1990 when Doug Swallow, a practicing homosexual, 
and his buddies from a homosexual computer bulletin board decided to get 
together and meet at the Magic Kingdom. Since then, their numbers have 
swelled to more than 125,000 attendees, all who wear red shirts to identify 
themselves as homosexuals. 

At first, Disney tried to distance itself from the event. However, as time 
went by and the homosexual dollars started to roll in, the event became as 
unofficially official as you could get, as Mike Schneider wrote in this 2000 
Associated Press piece: “Walt Disney World used to keep Gay Days in the closet, 
fearing the wrath of religious groups. One year, Disney posted signs at the 
entrance warning guests that there was a gathering of homosexuals in the Magic 
Kingdom. In other years, passes to other Disney parks were offered to guests 
who might be offended by large numbers of gays. As the celebration enters its 
10 th year this weekend, it's now as much as part of Disney as Mickey 
Mouse.... ‘During the first couple of years, their greatest fear was what other 
guests would think,’ said Tom Dyer, editor and publisher of Watermark, a gay 
newspaper in Orlando. ‘Their view has shifted to caring about how their gay and 
lesbian guests are treated.’” 

It is not just religious conservatives who are uncomfortable at gay days. 
Columnist Steve Otto, who states that he is not part of the religious right, wrote 
this about his family's experience at Disney World on Gay Days weekend: “Gay 
Days is no celebration of diversity to sit back and enjoy. Gay Days is a political 
statement. It's thousands of men and women wearing red shirts with labels such 
as ‘Gay Days and Magic Nights,’ groping and grabbing their way from one 
fantasy land to the next.. ..You couldn't help but listen as you stood in line. You 
could only stare into space for so long if you were trapped with them in a 



144 



monorail car or a bus. Too many in the red-shirted crowd were obscene.. ..They 
were vulgar and they were determined to make a statement. That statement had 
nothing to do with acceptance or equality or even the right to stand in long 
lines for two-minute rides. What they were saying was that if you didn't like 
their vulgarity, then you were somehow a smaller person. They were saying that 
it's all right to be as crude in a crowd as you would be anywhere, fci 

What Steve Otto and his family experienced at Disney World vividly 
illustrates that the radical homosexual agenda is not about tolerance; it is about 
acceptance and an in-your-face desire to flaunt homosexuals' sexuality and 
related behavior at the expense of others. And, as long as their money rolls into 
the corporate coffers, many corporations seemingly have little or no trouble 
going along with them. 

Yet, much of this is very sad. It is unfortunate that those caught up in 
homosexual behavior are now trying so hard to seek the joy that they missed in 
their own childhoods, by immersing themselves in the fantasy environment of 
Disney World. 

The Bottom Line 

So, what is the bottom line for radical homosexual activists and corporate 
America? Their strategy can be best summed up as follows: 

1. To force corporate America to accept sexual orientation as a protected 
class. 

2. To force corporate America to provide domestic-partner benefits (which is a 
neutral name for sex-partner subsidies). 

3. To use corporate America to force government at all levels to adopt sexual- 
orientation laws. 

4. To use corporate America to force government at all levels to provide 
domestic-partner benefits. 

5. To then persuade government to force all Americans to treat sexual 
behavior other than marriage as the equivalent of marriage. 

6. To produce more “equality” for all genders, as defined by homosexual 
activists. 

The government in states such as California has already moved to step 5 of 
their agenda. In San Francisco, homosexual activists have reached Step 6. 
Openly homosexual Congressman Barney Frank, a Democrat from 
Massachusetts, has adopted the line that “what is good for corporate America is 
good for the country” in pushing for federal domestic -partner legislation. The 
strategy of the homosexual activists with regard to corporate America is coming 
dangerously close to completion. 

Henry Blackaby, author of Experiencing God, says he believes that if revival 
is going to happen in America, it may very well happen through corporate 
America. Why? Because corporations play a vital role in shaping the culture, 
whether it is through advertising, philanthropy, or human resources policy. A 
number of believers are chief executives of major corporations, but they are 



145 



going to need the support of God's people to withstand the onslaught of 
demands by radical homosexual activists. 

While corporate America can be a tool for revival in America, it can also be 
the tool used by radical homosexual activists to transform our country into the 
image they desire, an image of unlimited sexual license and a silent church. 
That is why radical homosexual activists have targeted corporations. They know 
that executives and boards of directors make most corporate decisions, and 
therefore it is easier to implement their agenda via this route rather than 
through a vote of the people. 

It is going to take a concerted effort by serious people of faith to educate 
corporate America on the real agenda of the radical homosexual activists and 
why they should not adopt it. It is an agenda that not only undermines the 
family and promotes irresponsible sexual behavior; it is also detrimental to the 
best interests of both corporations and the country. 

Most of all, it is going to take the persistence, prayers, and the sacrifice of 
God's people to help turn the tide. The gains — destructive to biblical values, the 
gospel, and the traditional family — made by the radical homosexual activists 
can be reversed and other demands halted. It will happen only if God's people 
are willing to take a stand, whether it be in shareholder meetings, providing 
economic support to companies that have stood up to radical homosexual 
activists, or economic punishment for those corporations that aggressively push 
the homosexual agenda. Corporations are run with the bottom line in mind, 
hence the active courting of the disposable income of practicing homosexuals. 
Few companies now look beyond the next quarter or fiscal year in their pursuit 
of a favorable balance sheet and almost none consider the next generation. 
Therefore, their policies are targeted to the quickest gain possible, and the 
affluent members of the homosexual community are an attractive market to tap. 
If they can be convinced that the promotion of the homosexual agenda is 
hurtful of that bottom line in the long run, they will change their tune. 



146 



CHAPTER EIGHT 



The End of Tolerance 
(for Those Who 
Disagree) 



If I were the United Way, and all the agencies that depend on it, 

Id build a big pile of wood with a pole stuck in the middle of it. 

Then Id tie the leaders of the Boy Scouts of America to the pole, using 
only the most secure half-hitches and square knots. Then Id nib the 
two sticks together and work on that campfire merit badge. 

— Mike Thomas, columnist, Orlando Sentinel, in response to the United Way's 
financial support of the Boy Scouts of America 



In the last chapter we discussed a couple of instances in which employees who 
objected to homosexual behavior either faced disciplinary action or were 
terminated because of their beliefs. In this chapter we are going to look at how 
this is just an extension of what can be called “The End of Tolerance” for those 
who disagree with the homosexual agenda. 

Albert Buonanno was an employee for AT&T Broadband. When he was told 
that he would have to sign an employee handbook that demanded that he 
“value” a person's sexual orientation, he respectfully declined, citing his 
religious beliefs. He told his supervisors: “As a Christian, I am supposed to love 
my neighbor, regardless of what their sexual orientation is, but I'm not 
supposed to value the lifestyle of any person that contradicts the Word of God.” 
He was fired almost immediately. 

A prime candidate for the football coaching job at Stanford University was 
disqualified because he held biblically based views on homosexual behavior. 
Ron Brown, an assistant coach at the University of Nebraska, had called 
homosexual behavior a sin while talking on a Christian radio show in 1999. Alan 
Glenn, the assistant athletic director of human resources at Stanford, said: 
“[Brown's religion] was definitely something that had to be considered.” 

Courtney Wooten, the social director of Stanford's Queer Straight Social 
and Political Alliance made it clear that Brown's beliefs were a problem: “We're 
a very diverse community with diverse alumni. Wow, it would have been really 
hard for him here. He would be poorly received by the student body in 
general.” 

Brown noted the different standard held for Christians who don't toe the 
line on homosexual behavior. He stated, “If I had been discriminated against for 



147 



being black, they would've never told me that. They had no problem telling me 
it was because of my Christian beliefs. That's amazing to meji He added: 

There was talk at a particular school [Stanford] of concern over my 
beliefs in Christ and how that would play out on that particular campus. 
It's how people live out their faith in a bold and public way that bothers 
people. The reason why I have not pressed forward with specifics [about 
what he was told by Stanford] on that is because I did not want people to 
lose track of the major intention, [which] is to remind Christians that we 
live in a world that claims to be tolerant. But they're not really tolerant of 
Christians [or] the Christian world view. ...Any university or group.. .that 
claims the tolerance message cannot include truth in that tolerance 
message. The two just do not go hand in hand. If you are saying you're 
tolerant, and there's a Biblical mandate to stay away from a certain type of 
sin, then you're not going to be tolerant of that sin. You cannot possibly be 
tolerant over every lifestyle and every message that's given. Obviously you 
don't condemn other people, and you don't harm anyone else. But there's 
got to be some opportunity of expression of what one believes is the 
truth. 

Chris Kempling, an instructor at the British Columbia College of Teachers, 
was facing the suspension of his teaching license because he expressed his 
biblically-held view that homosexual behavior was immoral and that it should 
not be presented to British Columbia students as a normal and alternative 
lifestyle. Kempling faces a $25,000 fine as well. Jinny Sims, the head of the 
teachers union that should be defending Kempling said: “I really believe that as 
teachers we cannot let our personal religious beliefs dominate the way we 
communicate to our students and what we say. ” 

The bottom line is that the right of people of faith to hold sincere beliefs, 
along with the right to work in one's field, is under attack unless they are willing 
to muzzle any expression of their faith. 

In Alexandria, Virginia, a Christian print shop owner refused the business of 
a lesbian customer who wanted him to print materials promoting a homosexual 
activist organization. The owner had previously printed flyers promoting the 
client's cleaning service, but his company's written policy clearly reserved the 
right to “refuse to reproduce anything that the owner deems morally 
questionable” and that the owner felt violated his religious beliefs. The list of 
objectionable material included pornography, hate literature, and pro-abortion 
items, as well as materials promoting homosexual behavior. 

The lesbian client filed a complaint against the printer with the Alexandria 
Human Rights Commission. The print shop owner successfully stood up to the 
commission, and as a result, the city finally agreed not to bring charges against 
him. But the mere fact that he was brought before the commission for abiding 
by his deeply held religious beliefs is frightening to those who believe in 
religious freedom. 

Larry Phillips, a Missouri state social worker, had always had exemplary 
performance reviews until he raised an objection to the state's licensing of 



148 



practicing homosexuals as foster parents. His supervisor told him that “his 
religious beliefs were affecting his ability to do his job effectively” and that he 
was “too moral.” He was subsequently fired on a charge that other employees 
just received a written reprimand on. 

During oral arguments before the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the 
deputy attorney general of Missouri argued that an employee's religious beliefs 
with regard to homosexual behavior could be taken into consideration when 
making employment decisions. This is an absolutely chilling statement for the 
religious freedom of all believers. 

After the court issued a 3-0 decision in favor of Phillips, David Smith of the 
Human Rights Campaign put his organization's view of religious freedom this 
way: “Diversity of religious beliefs should be respected, as long as they don't 
influence public policy that should treat all people fairly.” Translated, that 
means that a person of faith has to check his religious convictions at the door 
and remain silent if his convictions are at odds with the homosexual agenda. 
Tolerance trumps religious freedom. 

In Louisville, Kentucky, Dr. J. Barret Hyman, a Christian physician, 
challenged a city ordinance that required him to hire openly homosexual 
individuals in violation of his religious beliefs. The U.S. Justice Department, in 
an unprecedented action (under former President Clinton) became involved in 
the case, filing a brief in support of the local homosexual ordinance. A federal 
judge dismissed his lawsuit and ruled in favor of the homosexual ordinance. 

Jeff Vessels, the Kentucky state director for the ACLU, stated that this 
decision made it clear that personal religious beliefs do not exempt someone 
from civil rights laws. Hyman said about the decision: “It is a sad day for 
Christians and most people who believe in the Bible.” 

In the case of Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., a Christian was fired for 
putting Bible verses about homosexual behavior on the overhead bins of his 
work station. He did this in response to a poster of two homosexual men that 
the company had placed near his cubicle. When he refused to remove the verses 
until the company took down the poster, he was told: “You have to accept our 
values or be fired.” He was terminated shortly afterward. 

These are just a few examples of how individual Christians and religious 
liberty have been affected by the homosexual agenda. 

Another way that religious freedom is limited is through the enactment of 
so-called anti-bias policies. For an example of how these policies can effectively 
silence those who object to homosexual behavior, consider this letter from an 
official in the Hennepin County, Minnesota, prison system to the volunteer 
chaplains who ministered there: 

A disturbing matter has come to my attention from several residents 
and staff of the women's facility. Without going into detail, as I understand 
it, an incident occurred in which volunteers told residents that 
homosexuality is a sin. While I will be talking personally to the Coordinator 
and volunteers involved, I want to make it clear to all of you that Hennepin 



149 



County's overall policy is: Respect Diversity. Whether differences are based 
on religion, national origin, race, sexual orientation, disability.. .Hennepin 
County is committed to providing an environment which is respectful of 
differences and free of comments or actions which may be offensive. It is 
crucial that all volunteers, as well as paid staff, understand this 
requirement.... I need to make it clear that in performing [volunteer service] 
you are required to abide by the County's diversity policy.. ..Those who, for 
reasons of conscience or otherwise, who don't agree to this will be 
requested not to be involved in the volunteer program. ... 

So, if you teach what the Bible says about homosexual behavior, your 
volunteer service is not tolerated. Such a gag order meant that a chaplain 
couldn't tell an inmate whether his or her sexual behavior was a sin that Christ 
could forgive. If an inmate asked a chaplain, “Do you think homosexual 
behavior is a sin?” the chaplain would have to remain silent or have to say, “I'm 
sorry, government policy prevents me from answering that question.” While this 
policy was overturned as a result of an ADF-backed legal action, it demonstrates 
the lengths to which homosexual activists and their allies will go to censor 
religious speech when it comes to homosexual behavior. 

Yet another method often used by homosexual activists and their allies to 
deny religious freedom is their special form of diversity training. This is nothing 
more than indoctrination to accept homosexual behavior and ridicule anyone 
who holds biblical beliefs on the issue. 

In another Minnesota case, three members of the Department of 
Corrections were forced to attend a mandatory diversity training workshop 
titled “Gays and Lesbians in the Workplace.” When one of the employees e- 
mailed the warden and expressed his faith-based belief that homosexual 
behavior was a sin and therefore attendance should not be mandatory, the 
warden fired back a memo to all staff demanding participation. The three 
employees in the case, all Christians, attended the session, as mandated and 
quietly read their Bibles in the back of the room. (It should be noted that other 
employees were reading magazines, newspapers, sleeping, or talking with other 
employees during the training session.) 

A month and a half after the session, the three Christian employees were 
singled out and given written reprimands for “inappropriate and unprofessional 
conduct” displayed during the training session. The reprimands specifically 
noted that reading their Bibles was “disrespectful and not acceptable.” The 
three believers were the only attendees to receive the reprimands, and two of 
them were taken out of consideration for any future promotions. In a 
particularly chilling statement, one of the diversity trainers said that the mere 
presence of a Bible in their room created a “hostile work environment.” 

* This reminds Alan of a trial while he was a federal prosecutor. During the trial, 
which took place in federal court, the defense lawyer tried a motion to bar 
Bibles and silent prayer by the spectators from the courtroom as they created an 
“atmosphere not conducive” for defense of obscenity charges. 

With the help of an ADF funded attorney, the plaintiffs filed a federal 



150 



action stating that the department's reprimand violated their rights to free 
speech, free exercise of religion, freedom of conscience, and Title VII of the 
Civil Rights Act. The district court ruled in favor of the employees on their 
freedom of religion and freedom of conscience claims but denied the free 
speech claim. 

t Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, 
sex, and national origin. 

Both sides appealed to the U.S. Appeals Court for the Eighth Circuit, which 
flipped the earlier decision on its head. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs 
free speech, equal protection, and Title VII rights, while denying their freedom of 
religion and conscience claims [emphasis ours]. The case awaits further court 
action. 

In addition, the court included a disturbing note in its opinion that stated, 
“The only burden placed on the Appellants [the plaintiffs] was a requirement 
they attend a seventy-five minute training program on which they were exposed 
to widely accepted views that they oppose on faith-based principles.” 

Think about that statement for a moment. It essentially says that the 
acceptance of homosexual behavior is the “widely accepted view” and that 
biblical beliefs on the issue are marginal at best. 

In early August 2002, the prison guards finally received justice. A nine- 
person jury unanimously agreed that the Minnesota Department of Corrections 
had violated the free speech and equal protection rights of the employees and 
concluded that they had been discriminated against because of their religious 
beliefs. The three prison guards were awarded punitive damages. 

It is quite obvious from all these examples that radical homosexual 
activists have no qualms about forcing people of faith to violate their own 
religious beliefs about homosexual behavior or face the consequences. Now 
they are going after the very right of private organizations (including religious 
non-profits, organizations such as the Salvation Army, Christian businesses, and 
churches) to hold to their biblical beliefs when it comes to employment 
decisions. 

The Attack on the Boy Scouts of America 

There is no more visible illustration of this than the onslaught of attacks on 
the Boy Scouts of America by homosexual activists and their allies. There is no 
more vivid example of how far our country has fallen away from the principles 
instilled in young men by the Boy Scouts. 

Yet it is ironic that while the media, homosexual activists, and their allies 
in government blast bishops of the Catholic Church for letting those who prey 
on teenage boys in, they criticize the Boy Scouts for its efforts to keep potential 
sexual predators out. 

When we were growing up, the Boy Scouts of America were admired 
worldwide for teaching young men to be honest, trustworthy, good citizens, and 
perhaps most importantly, to have good morals and to be reverent toward God. 



151 



Craig was a Life Scout (the highest rank one can obtain except Eagle) and an 
assistant scoutmaster for several years; Alan was involved in Cub Scouts. 

James Dale was an Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster who publicly 
acknowledged his practice of homosexual behavior in a gay magazine. No one 
had gone on a “witch hunt” to “out” him. Because homosexual behavior is 
incompatible with the scouting oath and its admonition to be morally straight, 
he was asked to resign his leadership position. Dale instead sued the Scouts, 
stating that they were in violation of the state of New Jersey's anti- 
discrimination law, which included sexual orientation. 

This case had serious ramifications for the rights of all private 
organizations, not just the Boy Scouts of America. If the case had been lost, 
further legal challenges by homosexual activists (and we will discuss some of 
these legal challenges later) could have forced churches and private 
organizations to lose their right to determine their own criteria for leadership 
and related hiring practices. 

Why? Because churches and religious organizations could also be subjected 
to public accommodation laws like New Jersey's because they invite others 
from the general public to attend and join, just like the Boy Scouts. The only 
possible way for churches to avoid this would be to just let the members in and 
lock the door and leave those who need to hear the gospel out in the street. 

After a defeat at the New Jersey Supreme Court, which ruled that the 
Scouts were governed by public accommodation laws and would have to admit 
homosexual scoutmasters, the Boy Scouts appealed the decision to the U.S. 
Supreme Court. 

The Supreme Court ruled in a close 5-4 decision that the Scouts were not 
subject to New Jersey's law. The court stated that the Scouts were a private 
group and were free to bar individuals from leadership whose behavior was 
incompatible with the group's beliefs. 

* Key precedent for this victory was established in one of the very first cases 
the Alliance Defense Fund supported before the U.S. Supreme Court: Hurley v. 
The Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Group of Boston (GLIB). In that case, the 
United States Supreme Court upheld the right of the organizers of a private 
Boston Veterans Parade to bar advocates of homosexual behavior from 
participating. The homosexual activists had sued to be included in the event. 
The case had been lost several times by the veterans group as it worked its way 
through the judicial system. ADF became involved in the case when the 
attorney for the veterans asked for funding to appeal the case to the high court. 
With funding and additional training, the attorney was successful. In a stunning 
and rare 9-0 opinion, the Court overruled the previous decisions in this case, 
stating that the veterans had the right to bar the homosexual group from 
marching in its privately sponsored parade. 

This decision set up a tsunami of protest from radical homosexual activists 
and their allies in the media and government. Sympathetic city and county 
governments threatened to (and in some cases did) throw the Boy Scouts out of 
their public, tax-funded meeting places. The Boy Scouts were booed by 



152 



delegates at the 2000 Democratic National Convention while presenting the 
colors there. Numerous corporations and thirty-nine chapters of the United 
Way (under pressure from homosexual activists) withheld funding from the 
Scouts in the form of financial blackmail to try to force them to change their 
policy. 

* Among the corporations that have pulled support from the Boy Scouts are 
Wells Fargo Bank, Levi Strauss, Chase Manhattan Bank, and Bank of America. 

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a California Democrat who represents the North San 
Francisco Bay Area, introduced legislation, which was defeated, to revoke the 
Scouts' federal charter. Members of the Clinton administration also tried to 
enforce an executive order that would have evicted Scouts from using federal 
lands but backed down after public backlash. 

Also in San Francisco, the local bar association issued a policy prohibiting 
its members (including judges) “from activities that may give the appearance of 
bias based on sexual orientation.” The policy states that judges “should not 
participate as members in a chapter or branch of any organization [such as the 
Boy Scouts] that invidiously discriminates on the ground of sexual orientation 
by excluding members on the ground of their sexual orientation, unless the 
judge's chapter or branch has disavowed that invidiously discriminatory policy.” 
Angela Bradstreet, the president of the bar association said: “The bar association 
was very concerned about some of the language included in the lawyers' briefs 
in Boy Scouts v. Dale, as well as in subsequent cases, referring to homosexuals as 
not morally straight and unclean.... We are absolutely delighted that the San 
Francisco Superior Court bench has joined with the Bar Association of San 
Francisco in taking the lead on this issue of fairness. ...We are now approaching 
other metropolitan bar associations and local courts to ask them to follow the 
Superior Court's lead in ensuring that there is both perception and actuality of 
equality and impartiality in our court system for everyone.” The California 
Supreme Court is now considering extending this ban to 1,600 judges 
statewide. 

Columnist Dave Thomas of the Orlando Sentinel viciously attacked the 
Scouts and basically called for the death of their leaders. He wrote: “If I were 
the United Way, and all the agencies that depend on it, I'd build a big pile of 
wood with a pole stuck in the middle of it. Then I'd tie the leaders of the Boy 
Scouts of America to the pole, using only the most secure half-hitches and 
square knots. Then I'd rub two sticks together and work on that campfire merit 
badge.” 

If someone substituted the leaders of the Lambda Legal Defense and 
Education Fund or the Human Rights Campaign in the text instead of the Boy 
Scouts of America, homosexual activists and the media would scream “hate 
speech” and demand prosecution. 

In Gloucester, Massachusetts, the mayor cancelled a city-sponsored fund- 
raiser for the United Way because of the organization's financial support of the 
Scouts. “You don't take a first step on the slippery slope of discrimination,” 
Mayor Bruce Tobey said. “The Boy Scouts do a lot of good service for a lot of 



153 



people, but the good cannot be coupled when there is public involvement with 
discrimination.” 

In Santa Barbara, California, the county board of supervisors voted 3-2 to 
condemn the Scouts, finding them “incompatible” with the county's anti- 
discrimination policy, and therefore “unsupportable” by the county of Santa 
Barbara. Who would have ever thought that honesty, good citizenship, and 
upright morals would be unsupportable by a local government? Only after a 
group of citizens expressed outrage and prepared an initiative, with the 
assistance of an ADF-trained volunteer attorney, for the local ballot to protect 
the Scouts, did the board back down. Otherwise, Santa Barbara could have 
denied the Scouts access to public facilities. 

In San Diego, California, the ACLU filed a lawsuit to evict the Boy Scouts 
from using public property they had leased from the city. The suit was filed 
almost immediately after the Scouts' victory at the U.S. Supreme Court. Dale 
Kelly Bankhead, an ACLU spokeswoman, said the lease “[made] the city a 
partner in the Boy Scouts' discrimination against gays and religious non- 
believers. While the Boy Scouts may not be for everybody, city parks are.” 
After a federal court ruled that the Boy Scouts were a “religious” organization 
because of their moral beliefs and should have their lease terminated, the city 
of San Diego caved in — and left the Scouts to fend for themselves against the 
ACLU. The city agreed to pay $950,000 in attorneys fees to the ACLU — money 
that can be used to continue the legal war by the ACLU and homosexual 
activists on the Boy Scouts. 

Other challenges to the Boy Scouts' right to use public facilities have 
occurred in Fort Lauderdale, E New York City, Los Angeles, and Minneapolis, 
among other cities. 

* The Scouts successfully sued the Broward County, Florida, school district 
(where Fort Lauderdale is located) to win equal access to the school buildings. 

In Berkeley, California, the mayor cancelled a meeting with a group of 
Japanese scouts from their sister city after receiving pressure from an openly 
homosexual city councilman. The mayor finally agreed to meet the Scouts but 
moved the meeting from city hall to a private home. 

A federal judge in Connecticut ruled that the state did not violate the rights 
of the Boy Scouts when it dropped them from a list of charities that state 
employees could contribute to via payroll deductions. A state human relations 
commission had previously accused the Scouts of violating the state's anti- 
discrimination laws. 

And, the American Medical Association went as far as to propose a 
resolution that stated that the Scouts' ban on homosexual leaders had “negative 
health consequences” because it would cause “psychological distress” for 
adolescents. 

Syndicated columnist David Limbaugh wrote: 

It's not enough that even the liberal United States Supreme Court ruled 



154 



in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale that the Constitution guarantees the BSA's 
right to exclude homosexuals from leadership positions in its organization. 
Homosexual activists will not take no for an answer. Their brand of 
tolerance insists that no tolerance be accorded the Scouts. Forget the BSA's 
constitutional right to freely associate with whomever they please. No one 
dares to withhold approval of the homosexual lifestyle lest they invite the 
unquenchable wrath of homosexual activists who, ironically, insist their 
aim is to prevent hatred. 

One of the saddest parts of the attack on the Boy Scouts is that it is one of 
the few organizations that have been able to make a significant positive impact 
on troubled boys in poor urban neighborhoods. When local governments evict 
the Scouts, these boys lose the moral guidance and life skills they so desperately 
need. However, in the view of homosexual activists and their allies it is more 
important, in some cases, to move the homosexual agenda forward than to save 
troubled boys. 

Why do some homosexual activists want so desperately to become 
scoutmasters? In many cases so they can have key roles in the formative years 
of boys and young men. As we outlined in chapter 3 on education, the activists 
know the earlier they can influence young people the more effective they are in 
advancing their agenda. One need only consider the priest sex scandal to 
identify a plausible theory along with their efforts in other countries to lower 
the age of consent for sex. In some countries, such as Spain, that age has been 
lowered to twelve! Homosexual activists in those countries have led this 
effort. 

Therefore, it is not too difficult to link homosexual behavior and predatory 
behaviors toward accessible teenage boys by those in positions of authority. 
The Scouts have genuine concern for those who are entrusted with the young 
men in their charge. As David Kupelian wrote, “The Scouting folks know what 
everyone with half a brain understands: that adults interested in sexual contact 
with young people gravitate toward careers and volunteer positions allowing 
proximity to their prey, positions such as coaches, teachers, scoutmasters — and 
priests.” 

Columnist Ann Coulter added these thoughts to the debate: 

Despite the growing media consensus that Catholicism causes sodomy, 
an alternative view — adopted by the Boy Scouts — is that sodomites cause 
sodomy.... No spate of sex scandals is engulfing the Boy Scouts of America. 
Inasmuch as the Boy Scouts were not taking risk-assessment advice from 
Norman Mineta, they decided to eliminate a whole category of potential 
problems by refusing to allow gay men to be scout leaders. Perhaps gay 
scout leaders just really liked camping. But it was also possible that gay 
men who wanted to lead troops of adolescent boys into the woods were up 
to no good. 

For their politically incorrect risk-assessment technique, the Boy 
Scouts were denounced as troglodyte bigots in all outlets of appropriate 
liberal opinion. Cities and states across the country dropped their support 



155 



for the scouts. The United Way, Chase Manhattan Bank, and Textron 
withdrew millions of dollars in contributions. 

And hell hath no fury like a New York Times editor spumed. The Times 
denounced the Supreme Court decision merely permitting the Boy Scouts 
to refuse gay scoutmasters as one of the court's “lowest moments.” The 
Times “ethicist” advised readers that pulling their sons out of the Boy 
Scouts was the “ethical thing to do.” 

And what can happen when a sexually predatory homosexual male does 
become a scoutmaster? In New York City, the leader of a Boy Scout troop 
pleaded guilty to four counts of third-degree sodomy after admitting that he had 
sexually abused a boy in his home. Between 1971 and 1991, more than 
eighteen hundred — 1,800! — Scout volunteers had to be dismissed because of 
sexual activity. B And, the pedophilia advocacy group, NAMBLA (the North 
American Man-Boy Love Association) has written a letter to the Scouts' 
national office asking the Boy Scouts of America “to cease its discrimination 
against openly gay and lesbian persons in the appointment of its scoutmasters 
and scouters and in membership. This will permit scouts to be exposed to a 
variety of lifestyles and will permit more of those individuals who genuinely 
wish to serve boys to do so.” 

* This issue particularly hits home for Craig. Several years after he had been a 
Boy Scout, one of his former scoutmasters was arrested and later confessed to 
and was convicted of sexually molesting teenage boys in a home for troubled 
youth where he was providing counseling. Fortunately, Craig was not a victim 
of such abuse at the hands of this individual. While no system is foolproof and 
these actions happened after this individual was no longer a scoutmaster, it 
illustrates the potential danger of letting anyone openly displaying or even 
boasting of a proclivity for homosexual behavior (and in some cases pedophilia) 
be a leader of teenage boys. 

t NAMBLA's literature states that one of its goals is “cooperating with the 
lesbian, gay, and other movements for sexual liberation.” See NAMBLA: 
Introducing the Man-Boy Love Association, 1980. 

Unfortunately, some Boy Scout chapters in liberal areas of the country are 
cracking under the attacks from homosexual activist groups and their allies in 
the media. The Boston Minuteman Council has introduced a new diversity merit 
badge, adopted a so-called antidiscrimination clause that included sexual 
orientation, and had an openly homosexual Boston radio personality host its 
annual fundraiser. The radio personality, David Brudnoy, said: “There are a lot 
of straight guys out there who could do this [emcee].” He added that the 
council wanted to send a signal, through his hiring, that it would not 
discriminate because of sexual orientation. 

It is not just the Boy Scouts that are under attack however. Religious-based 
businesses, non-profit organizations, and churches are finding themselves 
increasingly painted into a comer by homosexual activists. 

Employers' Rights in Jeopardy 



156 



Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children (KBHC) is a religious nonprofit 
organization that contracts with the state of Kentucky to provide a range of 
services for at-risk youth. It is the state's largest provider of child-care services 
and has a statewide network of shelters and care centers. 

Alicia Pedreira worked as a therapist at KBHC. When she was hired for the 
position, she agreed to the terms of employment that stated that KBHC had 
biblical objections to homosexual behavior and that any employee who engaged 
in such behavior would be immediately asked to resign or would be terminated. 
When Pedreira identified herself as an advocate of lesbian behavior, KBHC 
asked for her resignation. She refused, and KBHC had no other choice but to 
discharge her. 

Pedreira, with the help of the ACLU and Americans United for the 
Separation of Church and State, then filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court that 
directly challenged the right of private religious organizations to determine their 
employment policies. She claimed that she had suffered “religious 
discrimination^ under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and that use of 
government funds by KBHC violated the establishment clause of the U.S. 
Constitution. ADF supported allied attorneys assisting KBHC's defense. 

* Note the argument that acting on one's religious beliefs is illegal “religious 
discrimination,” a far-fetched but ominous legal argument. 

t See footnote on page 170. 



If I had been discriminated against for being black, they would've never told me that. They 
had no problem telling me it was because of my Christian beliefs. That's amazing to me. 

— Ron Brown, who was denied the head football coaching job at Stanford University 
because he said homosexual behavior was a sin 



The New York Times on April 1, 2001, hailed this case as “the most 
important gay rights case since Boy Scouts of America v. Dale.” It is obvious 
that radical homosexual activists know that this case could open a Pandora's 
box full of trouble for religious organizations because a victory for Pedreira 
could conceivably force religious organizations that receive any form of funding 
from the state to employ persons who engage in homosexual behavior. 

For an example, if a seminary accepts a student who has received a student 
loan through the federal government, the seminary could become subject to 
anti-discrimination laws that include sexual orientation. Why? Because the 
seminary is the indirect beneficiary of government funds, since those monies 
are going to the school to pay for a student's tuition. Or, for instance, a church 
runs a soup kitchen and accepts a few cases of government-excess foods to help 
feed the needy. The church, too, could then be made subject to the same law. 

On July 23, 2001, the U.S. District Court ruled that KBHC did not violate 
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it terminated Pedreira's employment. The 



157 



court correctly stated, “The civil rights statutes protect religious freedom, not 
personal lifestyle choices.” However, the judge did leave open related 
questions of whether the acceptance of government funds by religious 
organizations violates the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution. As this 
case will continue to wind its way through our judicial system, the rights of 
faith-based organizations that receive any form of government funding will 
continue to remain in doubt. This case is still pending. 

Bill Smithwick, the president of KBHC, stated the threat to religious 
freedom succinctly, “The final ruling on this issue will affect thousands of non- 
profits and faith-based organizations across the country.” 

To its credit, KBHC has said that it will forgo the state funds rather than 
compromise its principles. Smithwick says if the court rules against KBHC, “We 
may have to break ranks with public funding.”. In fact, it is already taken steps 
in that direction. It has announced that it will try to rely solely on donations 
from supporters instead. 

This case also bears watching because of President Bush's faith-based 
initiative programs. Pro-homosexual lawmakers, both Democrats and 
Republicans, and the media have seized upon this sincere effort by the 
president to allow religious groups to play a larger role in dealing with social 
issues, to push the homosexual agenda and force religious organizations to 
violate their beliefs. 

On July 11, 2001, the Washington Post ran a scathing report on how the 
Bush administration had cut a “secret deal” with the Salvation Army to make 
sure that it was exempt from antidiscrimination laws (many of which include 
sexual orientation) if it accepted funds from the president's faith-based 
program. A media and homosexual activist firestorm erupted, which led the 
Bush administration to back down. 

Homosexual activists are relentless in trying to force religiously affiliated 
organizations to bow to their agenda. For example, the Greater Louisville YMCA 
found itself attacked by a homosexual rights group called The Fairness 
Campaign because it denied family memberships to same-sex couples. The 
group said that the YMCA's policy of offering the memberships only to 
heterosexual families violated the spirit of the Louisville and Jefferson County 
fairness ordinances, both of which include sexual orientation as a class that 
cannot be discriminated against in housing, employment, and accommodations. 
Sadly, the YMCA formed a committee “to reexamine the policy,” rather than 
take a stance in defense of its policy. The result: the YMCA gave in to the 
demands of those who practice homosexual behavior. When one Christian 
organization caves in, it makes it tougher for those trying to stand up against 
the assault of homosexual activists. 

* The Young Women's Christian Association (YWCA) proclaimed in November 
2002 that it had been a “very, very long time” since the organization had 
focused on Christian values. “Now the focus is empowering women and 
families,” said spokesperson Crystal McNeal. That “empowerment” consists of 
dispensing contraceptives and condoms to girls and women, as well as support 



158 



for legalized abortion. See Michael L. Betsch, “Christianity No Longer Focus of 
Christian Group,” CNSNews. com, November 12, 2002. 

The Big Brothers/Big Sisters of America announced in July 2002 that it 
would require its local affiliates to allow practicing homosexuals to mentor 
children of their gender. At least a dozen of its local affiliates have formally 
protested the change in policy and are in the process of severing their 
relationship with the national office. One executive director noted that 
donations were down 10 percent since the change in policy. She said that the 
change had “zapped our energy and our focus. It's taken countless man-hours 
and time and energy away from what we all want to be doing and that's serving 
kids.” Another local director reported 100 percent opposition from parents and 
others to the change. 

The Big Brothers/Big Sisters made this change despite problems with 
homosexual counselors in some of its affiliates. In one example, a thirty-four- 
year-old mentor sexually molested a ten-year-old boy. Another homosexual 
Internet child pornography sting operation resulted in the arrest of two Big 
Brothers. Finally, another thirty-four year-old mentor was indicted by a 
Kentucky grand jury on seventy-three child-sex related changes involving young 
boys. 

Salvation Army chapters across the nation are beginning to pay the price 
for refusing to provide health care benefits to domestic partners. In Portland, 
Maine, the Army lost $60,000 in annual local government funding because it 
refused to offer such benefits and therefore violated the city's ordinance that all 
groups that receive funding from the city must provide such benefits. The 
Portland City Council rejected an amendment that would have allowed a 
religious exemption for faith-based organizations with sincere religious 
objections to homosexual behavior. 

Freedom of Speech? 

One other method used by homosexual activists to silence believers are so- 
called speech codes. These codes are pernicious, since they so blatantly violate 
the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 

The State College (Pennsylvania) Area School District instituted a speech- 
code policy in order to stop students from expressing negative views about 
homosexual behavior, among other things. When David Saxe, a professor at 
Penn State University heard about this speech code, he realized the possible 
ramifications for his two children who were students in the school district. Saxe 
felt that Christians have the right and duty to share their beliefs with other 
students, including beliefs regarding sexual behavior. 

If his children shared the gospel or called homosexual behavior disordered 
or something similar, they could have been subjected to a range of disciplinary 
actions, from a warning to expulsion, under the district policy. 

Saxe, with the help of ADF-allied attorneys, challenged the constitutionality 
of the speech code. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 



159 



ruled in his favor, stating that such speech codes “[strike at the very] heart of 
moral and political discourse — the lifeblood of constitutional self-government 
[and democratic education] and the core concern of the First Amendment.” 

While the result was favorable for the free speech rights of people of faith, 
we cannot count on the courts to continue to rule in this direction. We only 
need to look at what is happening internationally (for example. Bill C-250 in 
Canada that added “sexual orientation” to the nation's “hate speech” law) to see 
how far the silencing and punishment of those who do not comply with the 
homosexual agenda can go. Here are just a few examples: 

• In Canada, serious limits have been placed on Christian broadcasters who 
take a biblical stand against homosexual behavior. Focus on the Family, for 
instance, cannot air programs that might portray homosexual behavior in a 
negative light, or it will face sanctions from the Canadian Communications 
Commission. 

• In the Canadian Province of Saskatchewan, the Human Rights Commission 
ruled that a newspaper ad with biblical references against homosexual 
activity exposed homosexual men to “hatred.” The advertisement featured an 
icon of two stick figures holding hands. The figures were covered with a 
circle and a slash and were accompanied by four references from the Bible, 
without ever quoting the words. The commission said: “the slashed figures 
alone were not enough to communicate the hatred. ..but the addition of 
Biblical references are more dangerous.” The newspaper that carried the item 
and the man who placed the advertisement were forced to pay $1,500 to 
three complainants. Attorney Valerie Watson, who represented the 
homosexual activists, said, “It is obvious that certain of the Biblical 
quotations suggest more dire consequences and there can be no question 
that the advertisement can be objectively seen as exposing homosexuals to 
hatred or ridicule.” This ruling has now been upheld by the Court of 
Queen's Branch in Saskatchewan. 

• Students at Trinity Western University, a Christian teachers college in British 
Columbia, were refused accreditation to teach in public schools because 
they might be “unsympathetic to homosexual students” since the Christian 
university's policy forbids homosexual sexual relations. Students who wanted 
to be accredited would have to finish their training at a secular school that 
promoted the acceptance of homosexual behavior. John Fisher, the head of 
a Canadian homosexual activist group, said the Trinity students would not be 
able to counsel homosexual students “in a sensitive and non-judgmental 
way.” While the Canadian Supreme Court eventually ruled 8-1 in favor of the 
school and said that its students did not have to go elsewhere to receive a 
teaching degree, the one dissenting justice, Claire L'Heureux Dube wrote that 
“a lack of expertise among school staff creates missed opportunities to help 
lesbian, bisexual, and gay youth before a crisis develops.” 

• In British Columbia, a high school teacher was suspended for a month 
because he wrote letters to the local newspaper stating that homosexual 
behavior is not a “fixed orientation” but a condition that should be treated. 

• Also in British Columbia, the Human Rights Tribunal was told that the 



160 



provincial ministry of education discriminates against homosexual and 
bisexual students if it does not provide “positive” messages of sexual 
orientation and gender identity in the classroom. 

• In New Zealand, two Christian videos that dealt with the link between AIDS 
and homosexual activity, questioned “safe sex,” and investigated the 
homosexual agenda were subject to being outlawed by the New Zealand 
parliament as promoting “hate speech.” 

• One more British Columbia example: All marriage commissioners in the 
province who were not willing to perform same-sex “marriage” ceremonies 
were told they had to resign unless they relented and did so. Vancouver city 
councillor Tim Stevenson said, “You either do it or you look for another 
job.” 

• In Sweden, the parliament approved an amendment that bans all speech and 
materials opposing homosexual behavior and other alternative lifestyles. 
Violators could spend up to four years in jail. According to Annalie 
Enochson, a Christian member of parliament, Christians could be arrested for 
speaking about homosexual behavior in churches. “That means people 
coming from [the homosexual] lobby group could sit in our churches having 
on the tape recorder and listen to somebody and say, ‘What you're saying 
now is against our constitution. ”’ In June 2004, a Swedish court sentenced 
a Pentecostal pastor to a month in prison, under this law, for “offending” 
homosexuals in a sermon. 

• Also in Sweden, a company was forced to pay a former employee 
approximately $6,800 in damages after the employee accused her boss of 
homophobia for expressing his displeasure over a public lesbian kiss she 
shared with her girlfriend. The lesbian said that she felt “ostracized” at work 
and felt that she had to quit. 

• The French government approved a bill outlawing “homophobia.” The bill 
made “incitement to discrimination, hatred, or violence against a person on 
the basis of gender or sexual orientation” punishable by a year in prison or a 
45,000 euro ($54,000 American) fine. Of course, like C-250, religious speech 
that disapproves of homosexual behavior could be construed to cause 
“incitement,” just as innocent Christian leaders were accused of in the days 
after the Matthew Shepard case here in America. 

• In Great Britain, homosexual activists tried to challenge the charitable status 
of a Christian organization that had spoken out against the liberalization of 
age of consent laws (again the link between homosexual behavior and the 
sexual pursuit of teenage boys). While the charitable status of the 
organization was upheld, it was silenced when it agreed to “no longer 
influence public policy.” 

• In England, Prime Minister Tony Blair's government has sought to repeal a 
law that barred the use of public funds to promote homosexual behavior 
because the law served “no public purpose” and would “offend ‘gays.’” 

• In the Netherlands, Dutch authorities pondered whether or not to prosecute 
Pope John Paul II on discrimination charges after he said that a homosexual 
advocacy march in Rome was “an offense to Christian values.” While they 
eventually recognized that the pope had “global immunity” because of his 



161 



position as the head of the Vatican, the very thought of possible prosecution 
of a worldwide religious leader for his stance on homosexual behavior in 
another country demonstrates where the concept of speech codes and hate 
crimes legislation can eventually lead. 

Many Christians still say to themselves, “But that is happening over in 
Europe and in Canada; it's not happening in America.” Well, we have some bad 
news for such wishful thinkers. It is beginning to occur here as well. 

Matt Foreman, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task 
Force, said in Between the Lines, a Detroit homosexual news magazine, that he 
will “punish,” “terrify,” and “torture” anyone who opposes the homosexual 
agenda. He went on to say that such actions would bring him “endless 
satisfaction.” He said, “I'm interested... in going after, politically, local legislators 
and leaders that have launched these anti-gay initiatives (to protect traditional 
marriage). We beat you; now we're going to back and we're going to 
affirmatively punish you. ” 

After a pro-marriage rally staged by the Center for Arizona Policy, E. J. 
Montini, a columnist for the Arizona Republic, wrote mockingly, “We are at war 
with extremists whose hatred is based on moral superiority and religious 
fanaticism.” 

A California state appeals court has found that two Christian doctors in San 
Diego County were wrong when they refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian. 
The lesbian's attorney, Jennifer Pizer, said her clients were “traumatized” by the 
“discrimination.” The attorney said on “Hannity and Colmes,” “When the 
doctor is in her church, she can do religion, but not in the medical office.” 
David Limbaugh added, “Gay rights groups... are always the first to demand 
tolerance, but apparently their idea of tolerance is a one-way street. To 
demonstrate their commitment to tolerance, they should respect the doctors' 
religious convictions. Until they do, they will be signaling that it is not tolerance 
they seek, but conformity to their worldview they demand.Bj|j 

In Pennsylvania, a recent amendment to the state's “hate crimes” law 
added “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” as “motives that trigger heavier 
penalties for individuals found guilty of ‘harassment.’” In addition, the 
definition of harassment was expanded to include “harassment by 
communication.” Kevin Hasson, president of the Becket Fund for Religious 
Liberty said, “Although legislators expressly disavowed the motive at the time, 
one might be forgiven the impression that one purpose of this legislation was to 
generate a fear of prosecution among those who would preach and teach in 
favor of the traditional prohibition on homosexual behavior.... It is a measure of 
our times that religious leaders have lately considered taking out liability 
insurance to cover remarks made from the pulpit.” 

Where do radical homosexual activists want to take us with regard to 
religious freedom and public acknowledgment of God? One needs to look no 
further than the United Kingdom, where a British homosexual group has 
demanded that all references to God be stricken out of the preamble to a new 



162 



European Union constitution. Gay and Lesbian Humanist Association 
spokesman Terry Sanderson said, “Religion is dying throughout Europe and we 
have to realize that.” The group added, “To include references to God or our 
‘Christian heritage’ would start turning back on our 500-year journey from the 
Enlightenment. Instead, we should be proud of our progress and growing 
humanity.” 

Or we can take another look to Canada. At a February 12, 2003, University 
of Toronto symposium on “Religion vs. Sexual Orientation: A Clash of Human 
Rights?”, Dr. Robert Wintemute of the School of Law at King's College at the 
University of London said, “The religious majority may seek to have their beliefs 
reflected in secular laws, but they must do so through reasoned secular 
arguments. Religious text or doctrines must be excluded from legislative and 
judicial debates because unlike secular law, they rely on [an] inaccessible, extra 
democratic source of authority, which cannot be challenged or overturned by 
reasoned arguments. ...Religious doctrines must be deemed absolutely irrelevant 
in determining the content of secular laws.” 

Canadian lawyer Barbara Finley, an open lesbian, said, “The legal struggle 
for queer rights will one day be a struggle between religious freedom versus 
sexual orientation.” 

Finally, we can look to the United Nations. At a meeting sponsored by the 
UN Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual Employees, or UNGLOBE, a multipronged strategy for 
a “showdown with religion” on homosexual “rights” was launched. At this 
meeting, attended briefly by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, Roman Catholics 
and evangelical Christians were targeted as the “chief opponents” of the 
homosexual agenda. Princeton University professor Anthony Appial pondered 
whether religion should be “limited” because it poses a “challenge” to 
homosexual activists. Svend Robinson, the author of C-250, openly mocked 
born-again Christians, saying, “Do they have to come back as themselves?” 

In the radical homosexual activist manifesto After the Ball, Marshall Kirk 
and Hunter Madsen wrote, “[In regards to those] who feel compelled to adhere 
rigidly to an authoritarian belief structure (i.e., an orthodox religion), that 
condemns homosexuality... our primary objective regarding die-hard homohaters 
of this sort is to cow and silence them.” As we have seen in this chapter, their 
strategy is being played out on a daily basis against people of faith and religious 
organizations. We have a choice: We can either stand up and fight for our 
religious freedoms or allow the radical homosexual activists to cow and silence 
us. The choice is ours to make, and sad to say, to this point, many believers 
have chosen the latter option. 



163 



CHAPTER NINE 



The Full Weight of the Government 



Their goal is to get sexual orientation included [ into “hate crimes” 
legislation ]. Once they do that, this is laying the foundation for law 
enforcement to take care of those people that they consider to be 
members of the hate group. Churches, pastors, the whole nine yards. 
I don't think there will be any group left untouched 
when their agenda is finally completed. 

—Kevin McCoy, West Virginia Family Foundation 



On June 25, 2001, Judy Guerin of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom 
gave a speech at the fifteenth annual World Congress of Sexology in Paris. Her 
speech discussed her organization's plan to reform sexual laws in the United 
States. Her talk outlined the agenda of radical homosexual activists and their 
allies to push their agenda through federal, state, and local legislatures and 
bring the full weight of government pressure and laws down on those who hold 
biblical standards of sexual behavior. 

In her speech, Guerin discussed at length the changing “sexual ethos” of 
Americans, much of it driven by the gains made by the radical homosexual 
activists in the past decade. She stated: “The public discussion of sex appears to 
have increased tolerance for a broader range of sexual expression. As a result, 
the time seems right to press for the abolition of laws that prohibit consensual 
sexual activities such as sodomy, adultery, pornography, sadomasochism, and 
what constitutes public sex.” 

In June 2004, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) stated that 
it was time to repeal America's “archaic and unjust” sex laws. NGLTF launched a 
project to “identify” which laws need to be done away with. The task force 
press release said that the point of the project was “to educate Americans about 
the prevalence and abuse of antiquated and unjust sex laws in the nation, and 
to give grassroots activists policy and organizing tools to work to change these 
laws.” Targeted laws included those against public lewdness that, in the words 
of NGLTF, “are routinely misused to persecute and prosecute people who 
participate in non-traditional forms of sexual expression.” NGLTF also said that 
it looked at age-of-consent laws as well. 

As we have discussed earlier, the increasing exposure to and “tolerance” of 
homosexual behavior leads to the normalization and acceptance of other 
disordered sexual behaviors. As former law professor and federal circuit court 
judge Robert Bork put it so succinctly, we, as Americans, are indeed “slouching 
towards Gomorrah” (referring to the city that God destroyed in the Book of 



164 



Genesis because of the rampant sexual sin there). The result is that sexual 
disorders and extreme behavior are exalted, and the traditional family and 
religious freedoms are attacked. 

* See Genesis 19. 

What is alarming though, is that the radical homosexual activists and their 
allies want to write into law their special manifestations of a so-called right to 
privacy (a right that appears nowhere in the Constitution and was created in its 
present form by a majority of the Supreme Court in the infamous Roe v. Wade 
decision). This will allow them to openly practice and celebrate any variety of 
sexual behavior and to punish those who hold to biblical standards of sexual 
behavior. Guerin said, “The right to privacy must be extended to include one's 
choice of an adult sexual partner, or partners, in or outside of marriage [which 
used to be called adultery] and the full range of consensual sexual behaviors in 
which people engage, so, too, must the definition of ‘privacy’ be broadened to 
include public spaces such as sex clubs and live entertainment.” [emphasis 
added] 

In fact, in December 2002, the radical homosexual activists had one of 
their long-term wishes fulfilled when the United States Supreme Court accepted 
a legal challenge ( Lawrence v. Texas ) to its 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick 
that held that states could proscribe same-sex sodomy. Oral arguments were 
held on March 26, 2003, and a decision was issued on June 25, 2003. 

* The Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund is basing their case in part on 
the so-called “right to privacy” that was the linchpin in the infamous Roe v. 
Wade decision. This “right to privacy” was fabricated from a moon shadow by 
former Justice William O. Douglas in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut. Douglas 
claimed that he “discovered” this “right to privacy” in the “emanations” from 
the “penumbra” mystically hidden in the 3rd and 4th Amendments to the 
Constitution and between the 9th and 10th Amendments. What is a 
“penumbra”? It is a cloudy shadow around the moon. This ended up being the 
basis for the Roe decision. 

In this case, two homosexual men living in Texas were engaging in same- 
sex sodomy when police and other emergency personnel entered their property, 
responding to an emergency call to investigate a report that a man was “going 
crazy” with a gun. Since same-sex sodomy is illegal in Texas, the two men were 
fined. 

Overturning the Bowers decision has been the top item on the wish list for 
homosexual activists since 1986. If they got rid of Bowers, their sexual behavior 
(which carries tremendous public health risks, including the rapid spread of 
HIV/ AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases) can no longer be proscribed 
by the state. These behaviors that have cost Americans billions of dollars, 
millions of broken, wounded souls, and the very lives of thousands will be 
recognized as a protected activity! With this they believe all of the other legal 
“dominoes” that stand in the way of their agenda will begin to fall, such as 
prohibitions on same-sex “marriage,” the lifting of the “don't ask, don't tell” 
policy on homosexuals in the military, nationwide adoption of children by 



165 



same-sex couples, and most of all, the restricting of free speech rights for all 
who have biblical or faith-based objections to endorsing, funding, or supporting 
the sexual behavior. 

t In February 2003, Rolling Stone magazine, hardly a conservative publication, 
ran a story on “bug chasing, the behavior of homosexual men who deliberately 
engage in activities that could cause them to contract HIV/AIDS as a “badge of 
honor.” The writer cited sources estimating that 25 percent of all newly-positive 
HIV positive men had contracted the disease this way. Radical homosexual 
activists immediately went into spin control and tried to discredit the study in 
Newsweek magazine and other sources. Whether or not the 25 percent figure is 
accurate, “bug chasing” and the abandonment of so-called “safe-sex” has been 
well-documented over the years in several mainstream media sources, including 
the New York Times and San Francisco Chronicle. See Gregory A. Freeman, “Bug 
Chasers: The Men Who Long to Be HIV+,” Rolling Stone, February 2003. Also see 
Seth Mnookin, “Is Rolling Stone's HIV Story Wildly Exaggerated?” Newsweek, 
January 24, 2003. 

In fact, in their petition to the Supreme Court to hear the case, the radical 
homosexual organization Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund wrote that 
laws that prohibit or restrict sodomy are used to “justify discrimination against 
‘gay’ men and lesbians, in parenting, employment, access to civil rights laws, 
and many other aspects of everyday life.” The homosexual activists have made 
it clear where they want to go if they win Lawrence. 

Annise Parker, an openly lesbian member of the Houston City Council said 
about Lawrence: “It's one more battle, one more step. I think there will be a 
huge celebration if we win it.jf Ruth Harlow, a Lambda attorney arguing the 
case, said: “It's the most important gay rights case in a generation.” 

Christians had reason to be concerned when the Supreme Court granted 
review of this case, which challenged Texas's law designed to protect marriage 
and the public health by barring same-sex sodomy (thirteen states still had such 
a bar as of 2003). The court rarely grants review to a case that challenges a 
previous High Court opinion if the voting justices do not believe they have the 
votes to overturn it. 

Remember, just seventeen years ago, then Chief Justice Warren Burger said 
this about sodomy in his 1986 concurring majority opinion in Bowers: 
“Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to 
state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation 
of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical 
standards.... [Sir William] Blackstone described ‘the infamous crime against 
nature’ as an offense of ‘deeper malignity’ than rape, a heinous act ‘the very 
mention of which is a disgrace to human nature’ and ‘a crime not fit to be 
named.’ To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is some-how protected as a 
fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.” 

In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court provided exactly what the radical 
homosexual activists wanted: the extension of the so-called “right to privacy” to 
include homosexual sodomy. In his majority opinion. Justice Anthony Kennedy 



166 



did not look to the U.S. Constitution for guidance but instead to “trends” in 
state laws and, even more alarmingly, to “international law” as the basis for the 
decision! Quickly afterward, radical homosexual activists started to use the 
Lawrence decision to press for the total completion of their agenda, including 
same-sex marriage, adoption, and the elimination of the “don't ask, don't tell” 
policy of the U.S. military. 

Still some people may be saying, “So what? Who cares what homosexuals 
do in their bedroom?” But as former Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote, good 
governments have always regulated sexual behavior. Once one state law 
protecting marriage and regulating sex is found to be unconstitutional, all 
others are fair game, such as laws against pedophilia, sex between close 
relatives, polygamy, bestiality, and all other distortions and violations of God's 
plan. In addition, to the impact on human and marital relations, the state has a 
great interest in the public health costs and the moral impact on the culture. 

The efforts to reverse the experience of Western civilization all ties into the 
overall strategy of desensitization toward deviant and now often unlawful 
sexual behavior, as outlined by Kirk and Madsen. Once homosexual behavior is 
seen as something to be tolerated or even affirmed then other sexual activists 
can come back and say, “Then what about our sexual preferences and 
behaviors?” 

Another issue is the definition of consent by sexual liberation activists. 
Efforts to lower ages for consent would apply it to all kinds of deviant sexual 
behavior. Guerin stated that she felt that the homosexual movement had forced 
Americans to “confront” and “begin to overcome” traditional gender roles. She 
was encouraged the most by the “non-judgmental” attitude that Americans had 
adopted to deviant sexual behavior. 

She continued: “The new societal attitudes of openness and tolerance as to 
sexuality are evidencing themselves in a variety of ways. A major indication is 
the inclusion of an ever-broader range of sexually-defined groups in the U.S. 
anti-discrimination laws at the Federal and State levels: women, gays and 
lesbians, transgender people (the latter only in a few recent instances), with the 
types of protection (jobs, housing, parental rights, etc.) also expanding.” 

Guerin concluded that the time is ripe for the United States to legislate 
acceptance of more and more forms of sexual behavior. She called for the 
elimination of all statutes and government regulations regarding the choice by 
so-called sexual minorities of a marriage partner (including those who are 
“gender variant” or engage in wife-swapping); extending the principles of 
freedom of speech to all forms of pornography; and changing the attitudes of 
law enforcement and the medical professionals toward all forms of sexual 
behavior. 

California: The Brave New World 

Much of the brave new world of sexual liberation that Guerin described is 
already occurring in the state of California. A cadre of homosexual lawmakers, 
working with political allies and with a sympathetic governor, have begun 



167 



turning the state into what they describe as “the friendliest place in America for 
homosexuals.” And, not coincidentally, it has become one of the increasingly 
hostile areas in the country for religious liberty. 

What is happening in California may eventually occur at the federal level if 
people of faith continue to turn a blind eye to what is happening in local and 
state governments. The result will be increasingly dramatic losses of religious 
freedom and mandatory (under penalty of law) violation of conscience. 

As so-called “anti-discrimination” laws are expanded to include more and 
more sexual minorities and an ever-expanding list of what constitutes 
discrimination, serious Christians will find themselves more and more isolated 
and discriminated against in a society that has turned its back on God's plan for 
human sexual behavior. 

For example, in 2001, former Governor. Gray Davis signed AB1475. This 
bill removed the “religious exemption” that had protected religious health care 
providers, such as Catholic or Baptist hospitals, from being subjected to anti- 
discrimination laws that include sexual orientation. The bill stated that it would 
“make the provisions of the act prohibiting harassment [which is defined in the 
bill as refusing to hire or employ a practicing homosexual or to fire someone 
because of his or her sexual orientation] applicable” if the hospital accepts 
patients who are non-adherents of the religion of the hospital. Thus, if a 
Catholic or Baptist hospital accepts a non-Catholic or non-Baptist patient as part 
of its ministry, the hospital is immediately subject to anti-discrimination laws 
that include sexual orientation. 

Another bill the governor signed into law was SB225. This bill required that 
private (which in many cases means religious) schools with interscholastic 
sports teams adopt non-discrimination policies supporting sexual orientation 
and “perceived gender” or face the prospect of being banned from the California 
Interscholastic Federation (CIF) or other interscholastic sports programs. In a 
nutshell, schools, both public and private, must have a non-discrimination 
policy that includes sexual orientation in place or otherwise they can no longer 
compete in interscholastic sports. As the law is written, a religious-based school 
that refuses to abandon its convictions and challenges this law may have to 
explain its “religious tenets” to a judge who will ultimately decide the case. 

* In chapter 5 we discussed former Governor. Gray Davis's signing a domestic 
partners bill (passed on September 12, 2001, the day after the attacks on the 
Pentagon and World Trade Center) that gave domestic partners a dozen of the 
same rights as married couples. This was in despite of a 2-1 popular vote in 
March 2000 that reaffirmed marriage in California as being between one man 
and one woman. See Jim Wasserman, “California Governor Signs Gay Rights 
Bill,” Associated Press, October 15, 2001. 

In May 2002, the California Senate approved a tax break for unmarried 
couples that gives them the same property tax exemptions as traditional married 
couples. Unmarried couples that have lived together for at least five years will 
not be subject to property tax assessments when one of them dies. Jackie 
Speier, the sponsor of the bill, said: “We can no longer define the family in the 



168 



traditional way, and the state should not be judging individuals' living 
arrangements.” But of course, the state is making a judgment by granting this 
special exception to advance fornication, sodomy, and other behaviors leading 
to non-normal living arrangements. 

In early August 2003, then-Govemor Davis signed into law AB196, 
authored by openly homosexual assemblyman Mark Leno of San Francisco. This 
bill prohibits housing and workplace discrimination based on “gender 
characteristics” (i.e., “transgenderism”). The bill was coauthored by four 
members of the state's “Legislative Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender 
Caucus.” Leno tried to take advantage of the war in Iraq by stating, 
“Particularly at this time when we are at war supposedly defending democracy, 
everyone without exception should have an opportunity to pursue their dreams 
and become all that they are God-given.” The bill contains no exemption for 
religious business owners, owners of Bible book-stores, or for non-profit 
organizations such as the Boy Scouts if they refused to hire someone because 
they are a transsexual. Those found in violation of the proposed law would be 
fined $150,000. 

The Pretense of Tolerance Is Over Part 2 

While many would tend to dismiss what is happening in California because 
of its liberal reputation, it still illustrates the growing national threat to people 
of faith. This is because it is the largest state in the nation, and if it were an 
independent nation it would be the sixth largest economy in the world. 
Homosexual activists have had virtual carte blanche in the state legislature in 
efforts to advance their agenda and restrict the freedoms of those who hold and 
practice sincere religious beliefs opposing homosexual behavior. California is 
not the only place that has begun to open its doors wide to homosexual 
activism. It is happening at the federal, state, and local levels nationwide. Here 
are just a few examples, including some more from the Golden State: 

• In Philadelphia, Mayor John Street signed an ordinance that added gender 
identity to the city's anti-discrimination ordinance. It was adopted on April 
30, 2002. New York, San Francisco, Denver, and Minneapolis also have 
similar laws. 

• When San Francisco's law was passed back in 1994, former Supervisor 
Terence Hallinan said: “Very seldom do we have the opportunity to make 
history, to reach out beyond the mundane and make justice. We are doing it 
here. We are creating a new civil right.” 

• In July 2001, the state of Rhode Island enacted a measure that extended 
civil rights protection to transsexuals and cross-dressers. The Associated 
Press reported, “The measure was enacted on the final day of the legislative 
session, barely raising a fuss — a sign perhaps of the growing trend around the 
country of offering anti-discrimination protections to transgendered 
individuals.” Even homosexual activists didn't expect this bill to pass. “We 
thought it would be very controversial, but legislators seemed to understand 
it was an issue of basic human rights,” said Tina Wood of the Rhode Island 



169 



Alliance for Lesbian and Gay Civil Rights. 

• A New Jersey Appeals court ruled that the state's anti-discrimination law 
applied to transgendered individuals. The decision read as follows: “It is 
incomprehensible to us that our Legislature would ban discrimination against 
heterosexual men and women; against homosexual men and women; against 
bisexual men and women; against men and women who are perceived, 
presumed or identified by others as not conforming to the stereotypical 
notions of how men and women behave, but would condone discrimination 
against men or women who seek to change their anatomical sex because 
they suffer from a gender identity disorder.” Such a decision opens up a 
whole slew of expanding rights for various sexual behaviors. 

• On May 1, 2002, the New York Times expressed its editorial support for a 
“transgendered rights” bill that was signed into law by New York City Mayor 
Michael Bloomberg. The Times wrote, “The transgendered category covers a 
wide array of people who do not fit into traditional gender groups, whether 
due to appearance, behavior or physical attributes. ...Because the rights of 
the transgendered have gotten little attention, it might seem that New York 
broke new ground yesterday. But in fact, more than 40 towns, counties, 
cities, and states — including Iowa City, Louisville, Kentucky, and Rhode 
Island — have written transgendered people into their anti-discrimination 
laws. New York City's action yesterday was not path-breaking, but it should 
light the way for other jurisdictions to extend protection to their own 
transgendered citizens.” In regard to such laws. Paisley Currah, associate 
professor of political science at City University of New York, said, “It's 
[transgendered protection] totally exploding — in law, the amount of 
litigation, the laws passed, the law reviews written. Transgendered people 
have become more organized and [are] moving beyond merely a support 
system for each other to actually fighting for their rights.” 

• In Minnesota, former governor Jesse Ventura proclaimed June 2002 Gay, 
Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender Pride Celebration Month after refusing to 
issue a proclamation in support of the National Day of Prayer. Ventura's 
proclamation read: “Members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender 
community have made significant contributions towards the enhancement of 
our quality of life through active involvement in the economic and political 
activities of the community. ” 

• In Sacramento, an elaborate display proclaiming June as “Gay Pride Month” 
was featured in the rotunda of the state Capitol where a Christmas nativity 
display would bring lawsuits and screams of protest. It included a pink 
triangle (the homosexual symbol of pride) and photographs of the state's 
four lesbian lawmakers. 

• The chief justice of Quebec, Michel Robert, said that the work of the 
Canadian judiciary had been to re-create a new and moral social order that 
affirmed homosexual behavior. In an interview with the National Post, the 
chief justice said that the nature of the judiciary is to create social policy and 
redefine public policy without public oversight and without reference to 
“traditional moral norms.” He concluded: “We are defining the fundamental 
socio-economic values of the society and I don't think this will change.” He 
then linked legalized abortion and same-sex “marriage”: “If same-sex 



170 



marriages are legal and being performed every day, it's because of three 
courts' decisions — BC, Ontario, and Quebec. The courts defined what is 
permitted and what is not permitted in terms of abortion in this country, and 
the same thing might happen with.. .same-sex marriage.” 

• Attorney General John Ashcroft, who himself has often taken a strong stance 
against homosexual behavior, allowed his deputy attorney general, Larry 
Thompson, to speak at a “Gay Pride” celebration in the United States 
Department of Justice's great hall. Betty DeGeneres, the mother of Ellen 
DeGeneres, also spoke at the Office of Personnel Management's Gay Pride 
celebration. The Bush administration also appointed an actively practicing 
homosexual man to the post of Ambassador to Romania, and Secretary of 
State Colin Powell pointedly introduced the man's partner, who will reside in 
government-funded housing, at the State Department swearing-in 
ceremony. Robert Steers, of the GOP homosexual group, the Log Cabin 
Republicans, said, “We have never had this much access to a Republican 
White House before.” Finally, the Bush administration let stand Clinton 
White House policies that extended workplace discrimination claims to 
include sexual orientation. 

• It was reported on March 24, 2004, that in 2003 the number of individuals 
discharged from the armed forces for violations of military standards relating 
to homosexual behavior had fallen to 787, the lowest level since 199fgy 
(For the prior five years, the armed services discharged more than 1,000 
members annually, and a total of more than 8,500 members since 
implementation of former President Bill Clinton's “Don't Ask, Don't Tell” 
policy). 

• Many homosexuals acknowledge implicitly that deviating from God's norms 
for marriage get worse and worse. Now, many use the word queer because it 
embodies more sexual minorities than just homosexuals. 

Under this policy, men and women who engage in homosexual 
behavior were allowed to remain in the military as long as they kept their 
“sexual orientation” private and refrained from homosexual behavior. In 
fact, under the present military policy, a service member's commander — 
who may not ask a member to reveal their sexual “orientation” — is able to 
initiate an inquiry or process for discharge only if the member (1) makes a 
statement that he or she is lesbian, gay, or bisexual; (2) engaged in physical 
contact with someone of the same sex for purposes of sexual gratification; 
or (3) married or attempted to marry someone of the same sex. 

Even these very limited rules were too restrictive for the homosexual 
advocates who sued the military repeatedly to challenge its rules. The 
Alliance Defense Fund provided funding for allied attorneys in their efforts 
to help defend the law in three separate legal challenges to the military's 
proscription on active, open homosexual behavior in the armed services of 
the United States. These legal challenges were heard by federal circuit 
courts of appeal. In each case, the Pentagon was deeply concerned about 
the impact of such open behavior on the high standards of conduct and 
performance essential for military readiness. 



171 



The Department of Defense has not commented on the 2002 decline in 
involuntary separations for homosexual conduct, nor is it clear that the 
decline is statistically significant. Nevertheless, homosexual activist C. 
Dixon Osbum, the executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense 
Network (dedicated to the removal of the “don't ask, don't tell” policy and 
for the open participation in homosexual behavior in the military), said: 
“When they need lesbian, gay, and bisexual Americans most, military 
leaders keep us close at hand.” It is unlikely, however, that most 
commanders knowingly retain individuals who fail to obey the “don't tell” 
and “don't engage in homosexual conduct” policy. In fact, recruitment is 
up and retention standards in general are tighter than in today's armed 
forces. Still, considering the limited proscriptions of the current policy, it 
is astounding that so many men and women each year fail to keep their 
homosexual desires, activities, or behaviors private and to themselves. 

• This comment is from Melissa Wells-Petry, a former major in the U.S. Army. 

• In Benton County, Oregon, county commissioner Linda Modrell announced 
that the county would not issue marriage licenses to heterosexual couples 
until the homosexual couples were allowed to marry. Modrell said, “To 
maintain consistency with our oath to uphold Oregon's Constitution's anti- 
discrimination provisions, we must temporarily cease issuing marriage 
licenses to any couple, regardless of gender until there is a state 
determination.” 

• The Centers for Disease Control launched a campaign called “STOP AIDS: Sex 
in the City.” Included in this campaign were workshops on “Sex Toys and 
Gay Masturbation Techniques” and “Exploration of ‘Gay’ Intimacy and 
Fantasy” and a live bondage/sadomasochistic show featuring toys, role- 
playing, and “scene negotiation.” This program received $698,000 in federal 
funding in fiscal year 2000 under then-President Clinton. 

• Another Centers for Disease Control Web site featured a link to Internet 
pages of “pro-sex” activist organizations that provided teenagers with explicit 
advice on homosexual behavior, sodomy, and masturbation. The link was to 
the Coalition for Positive Sexuality and featured statements like: “If you 
think you might be queer, relax! If you think you might be queer, try to find 
a lesbian/bisexual/gay/trans gender community center near you.” 

• In Portland, Oregon, Mayor Vera Katz issued an official proclamation 
commemorating “Leather Pride Week” in honor of the National Leather 
Association's Bondage, Discipline, and Sadomasochism Event in the city. A 
spokesman for the mayor said that the proclamation “cited the importance 
of a diverse community and praised the motto of ‘Safe, Sane, and 
Consensual’ adopted by the leather community.” Susan Brownlow, the state 
director of Concerned Women for America, said: “Where are you going to 
stop? Is it going to be pedophilia next?” 

As you can see from each of these pieces of legislation and other actions by 

federal, state, and local governments, the affirmation of homosexual behavior is 

just the beginning. Once homosexual behavior is affirmed by government. 



172 



promoters of other disordered sexual behaviors (behaviors prohibited by 
Scripture) start to demand their rights. After all, if you are going to tolerate one, 
you have to tolerate all. 

For the Christian, the issue becomes especially problematic when the 
government adopts special legal privileges for those engaging in homosexual 
and other extramarital sexual behavior. As we have seen with the Catholic and 
other religious hospitals in California, the passage of such legislation is just one 
short step away from forcing Christians, churches, and religious organizations to 
violate their sincere beliefs with regard to homosexual behavior or cease to 
function. 

The Supreme Court has already upheld the exclusive power of the Internal 
Revenue Service to determine when the “public interest” trumps religious liberty 
for tax exemption purposes. In 1983, the Court, in an 8-1 decision, upheld the 
revocation of the tax-exempt, non-profit status of Bob Jones University 
because school officials genuinely believed “that the Bible forbids interracial 
dating and marriage.” (See appendix 1 for a more detailed discussion of this 
decision.) Therefore, if homosexual behavior is legally equated with race as the 
radical activists demand, and is granted heretofore unimagined constitutional 
protection, then the next logical step, based on the decision in Bob Jones 
University v. United States of America, could be for traditional Bible-based 
religious organizations and churches to have their tax-exempt status revoked 
because they engage in “discriminatory” behavior. The U.S. Supreme Court 
wrote: “History buttresses logic to make it clear that, to warrant exemption 
under 501 c3, an institution must... be in harmony with the public interest The 
institution's purpose must not be so at odds with the common community conscience as 
to undermine any public interest that might otherwise be conferred” 

* In 1970, a federal court decision prohibited the IRS From allowing tax-exempt 
status for certain private schools whose admission policies discriminated on the 
basis of race. See Green v. Kennedy, 309 F. Supp. 1127, appeal dism'd sub nom. 
Cannonv. Green, 398 U.S. 956 (1970). 



Very seldom do we have the opportunity to make history, to reach out beyond the mundane 
and make justice. We are doing it here. We are creating a civil right. 

— Former San Francisco Supervisor Terence Hallinan on the city's passage of a 
transgender anti-discrimination law 



We are beginning to see the first stages of radical homosexual activists 
playing this trump card. As reported in chapter 6, the Canyon Ferry Baptist 
Church in Montana found itself under investigation after it hosted a closed- 
circuit television feed of pro-marriage speakers in Colorado Springs. During the 
rally a petition was circulated in support of an amendment to the Montana 
Constitution that would define marriage to be between one man and one 
woman. These actions are perfectly legal under IRS guidelines (see Gary 
McCaleb's letter in appendix 2). ADF counsel Gary McCaleb — with local lawyers 
Timothy C. Fox and Alan Jocelyn — filed a lawsuit in Helena, Montana, seeking 



173 



declaratory relief from the state's efforts to apply state election law to churches 
that merely teach and preach in support of traditional marriage and make 
petitions available on church premises to qualify the constitutional amendment 
for the Montana ballot. 

In addition, as also reported in chapter 6, churches that do not perform 
same-sex “marriages” could also face legal challenges to their tax-exempt status 
if they are found to engage in “discrimination.” (See appendix 1.) 

Therefore, if homosexual behavior is found by the IRS and the courts to be 
in “harmony” with the public interest, and if biblical teachings and practices of 
churches and religious organizations are “at odds” with the common community 
conscience that affirms homosexual behavior, their financial status will be 
seriously compromised. 

The ENDA of Religious Freedom 

This is where the danger of the federal Employment Non-Discrimination 
Act, better known as ENDA, comes in. This legislation, which was barely 
defeated in the U.S. Senate in 1996 (and would have been readily signed by 
then-President Bill Clinton) by a margin of 50-49, would have added the 
category of sexual orientation to the 1964 federal Civil Rights Act. It continues 
to be brought up year after year until it is passed. 

When one looks at the demographics of the homosexual community, it 
becomes quite obvious that those who identify themselves as homosexual or 
engaging in homosexual behavior are not nearly the oppressed class portrayed. 
In fact, the marketing strategies of entire industries, such as airlines, cruise 
lines, and alcoholic beverages, are based on their knowledge of the ready cash 
available to the active homosexual and the homosexual media's knowledge of 
that cash to sell advertising. 

In a 2000 study released by Simmons Research, the average income of 
homosexual and lesbian households was found to be $85,000, or more than 
twice the national average (see chap. 7). Another study by Syracuse University 
in 2001 found that the median income for homosexual couples in the United 
States was $65,000, nearly 60 percent higher than the national median of $ 40,800 . 
More than a fifth of those who responded to the Syracuse study reported an 
income of $100,000 or more. It is interesting to note that homosexual 
advocates, conference leaders, and activists promote these figures when trying 
to convince corporations, like United Airlines, to market to them or grant 
special privileges but then deny the existence of the very same statistics when 
they are trying to make the argument that they are an “oppressed” class. 

In fact. Rich Tafel, head of the GOP homosexual organization, the Log 
Cabin Republicans, questioned the need for ENDA. He said, “I can tell you 
anecdotally that as I travel all over the country, I almost never hear from 
anyone who was fired because they were gay.’^" After a firestorm of protest 
from homosexual activists, observers predict Tafel will either quietly reverse his 
position or no longer head the Log Cabin Republicans. 



174 



It becomes quite obvious that the single greatest reason for ENDA to exist 
is to limit, stop, and punish individuals and organizations that believe that 
homosexual behavior is sinful or disordered and that so-called personal sexual 
and related behavior can in fact have a public or employment related impact. 

ENDA's supporters claim that religious organizations, including schools and 
institutions of higher learning owned and operated by a religious organization 
would have been exempt from the bill. However, Roger Clegg, general counsel 
for the Center for Equal Opportunity, writing in the National Review, shows how 
the bill, even with a so-called religious “exemption” (which has been shown in 
California to be worth practically nothing as homosexual activists incrementally 
strip it away) would violate the religious freedom of millions of Americans. He 
wrote: “Something should be said at the outset about the distinction between 
homosexuality and homosexual behavior.... Millions of Americans believe that 
homosexual behavior violates sincerely and deeply held religious beliefs. It is, in 
other words, a sin. What is the relevance of this fact for law and government? 
Well, sometimes sins are made illegal — murder and theft, for instance. 
Sometimes they are not; no one is jailed for failing to honor his father and 
mother. And sometimes they are made illegal but seldom prosecuted. Much 
fornication, including homosexual behavior, falls into this category. The idea is 
to stigmatize the behavior, even if it is unrealistic to prosecute it.” 

Clegg then continued to show how ENDA would have stigmatized those 
who have sincerely held religious objections to homosexual behavior: 

It might be objected that this is not an appropriate role for law and 
government. Instead, if some people want to stigmatize certain behavior 
then they should find ways to do so without dragging legislators and 
lawyers, let alone prosecutors, into the act. Which, of course, is exactly 
what the Employment Non-Discrimination Act makes it impossible to 
do.. ..Who wants to make a private behavior [religious objection to 
homosexual behavior] by an adult illegal — those supporting the bill or 
those opposing it? And who wants to use the government to force people 
to act against deeply held personal beliefs? It is, of course, the proponents 
[emphasis ours] of the bill who want to make private behavior illegal, not 
its opponents. The private behavior is the exercise of one's freedom of 
association and control of one's own property to refuse, on occasion, if one 
wishes, to hire homosexuals. 

Therefore, what would have been stigmatized is not homosexual behavior, 
which has serious negative ramifications for society, but religious, public 
health, or other objections to such behavior. The religious freedom to talk about 
the sinfulness or disordered nature of homosexual behavior and the need for 
redemption would be ridiculed, while the behavior that often leads to death 
would be exalted. It is also important to realize that the tendency of courts 
interpreting such legislation is almost always to expand coverage, not to retract 
it. Eventually religious exemptions are whittled away in subsequent legislation 
until no exemption is left. 

* In recent years, unprotected homosexual sex has led to a serious spike in new 
HIV/ AIDS infections. Since 1981, more than 1 m illi on Americans have been 



175 



infected with the AIDS virus, and about 450,000 have died. In addition, syphilis 
and gonorrhea among homosexuals in San Francisco has doubled in recent 
years. (Source: Rene Sanchez, “A City Combats AIDS Complacency,” Washington 
Post, May 12, 2002, p. A3). Another recent study found that a majority of young 
homosexual men who are infected with HIV/ AIDS have no idea that they are 
infected. (Source: Leonard Altman, “Alarming Finding on HIV in Gay Men,” New 
York Times, July 8, 2002). 

Censoring the Pulpit 

Another type of law that will be used to silence or punish people with 
religious objections to homosexual behavior is so-called hate crimes legislation. 
We have already shown how such legislation in Canada, Sweden, and Holland 
will lead to the censoring and punishment of anyone who raises an objection to 
homosexual behavior, even from the pulpit. 

In fact. Sen. Ted Kennedy, who is the co-sponsor of ENDA and a federal 
hate-crimes bill, called religious objections to homosexual behavior “an 
insidious aspect of American life.” 

Stop and ponder these comments for a moment. The force that launched 
America, the belief system that made it great, the freedom that allowed the 
Kennedy family to become rich and powerful is “insidious.” 

As can be seen from other countries, the expansion of hate crimes will be 
used against any religious viewpoint that objects to homosexual behavior — 
because the philosophy underlying so-called hate crimes goes far beyond the 
commitment of an actual crime — it punishes the thought in some ways, the 
belief system behind the crime. These laws can be quickly expanded and 
separated from any form of traditional crime to include any speech that 
homosexual activists would claim incited someone to harm a homosexual 
person. Therefore, it is logical to expect that, just as Dutch authorities were 
urged to prosecute Pope John Paul II, individuals such as Dr. James Dobson — 
who was bizarrely blamed indirectly and wrongfully with regard to the tragic 
murder of Matthew Shepard — could be charged with committing a hate crime 
anytime they mentioned the biblical position on homosexual behavior. This 
same rule could possibly extend to churches (that is on the verge of happening 
across the Atlantic). 

In municipalities with an assortment of hate crime laws or similar speech 
limiting laws, religious freedom is already at peril. In 1998, the San Francisco 
Board of Supervisors took the unusual action of denouncing an advertising 
campaign sponsored by a national ministry that said homosexual behavior was 
sinful and that homosexuals can change. The ministry's advertisement, which 
appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle, said that Christians love those trapped 
in homosexual behavior but pointed out the destructiveness of homosexual 
behavior and the need for Jesus Christ to bring healing to the lives of those 
practicing homosexuality. The board passed two resolutions that said such 
advertising “validates oppression of gays and lesbians” and creates a climate 
“that may encourage violence.” The ministry took the board to court over the 
resolutions, but the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejected the 



176 



claim, stating, “The main purpose and effect of the Supervisors' actions was to 
promote equality and condemn hate crimes, not to attack or inhibit religious 
beliefs.” Yet that is exactly what the resolutions did. This is just a taste of 
what is to come if expanded federal hate crimes legislation in its various forms 
comes to pass. Imagine the explosion of outrage and the court's decision if on 
the other hand, the board had passed resolutions supporting the ads? 

In West Virginia, it was reported that an assistant attorney general in that 
state had been teaching police about hate crimes. The manual he was using was 
allegedly written by employees of the U.S. Justice Department under former 
Attorney General Janet Reno. A sentence about hate groups reads, “Some 
groups include apocalyptic Christianity in their ideology and believe we are in, 
or approaching, a period of violence and social turmoil which will precede the 
Second Coming of Christ.” Kevin McCoy, the head of the West Virginia Family 
Foundation commented, “[This curricula is] laying the foundation for certain 
types of speech that are not politically correct and how they could be possibly 
perceived to be not appropriate within the law enforcement community.... If this 
curricula is continued to be taught to law enforcement in this state, it will not 
be long before they roll out the big guns and start cracking the whip. ...Their 
goal is to get sexual orientation included. Once they do that, this is laying the 
foundation for law enforcement to take care of those people that they consider 
to be members of the hate group. Churches, pastors, the whole nine yards... I 
don't think there will be any group left untouched when their agenda is finally 
completed.” 

An individual who posted a message in response to the article containing 
McCoy's comments, wrote, “Yes, Christianity is a hate group. ...Not all Christians 
are hateful but their beliefs are hateful.” 

Still, many Christians are unaware of the threats posed to their religious 
freedoms by potential laws like ENDA and hate crimes legislation. Some 
Christians even support various forms of such laws because it seems like the 
“fair thing to do.” What they don't know is that when they support or are 
ambivalent about such legislation, they are signing a death warrant for religious 
liberty. Many Christians will come to realize the famous lament of the German 
pastor, Martin Niemoeller, is true for them as well: “First they came for the 
Jews, but I did nothing because I am not a Jew. Then they came for the 
socialists, but I did nothing because I am not a socialist. Then they came for the 
Catholics, but I did nothing because I am not a Catholic. Finally, they came for 
me, but by then there was no one left to help me.” 



177 



CHAPTER TEN 



Where Do We Go 
from Here? 



Those who want to win the world for Christ must have 
the courage to come into conflict with it 

— Titus Brandsma, martyr, who died at Dachau as a victim of Adolf Hitler in 1942 



A new missionary was walking the streets of Colombia one day, a nation 
ravaged by organized crime and rampant drug use, accompanied by a Christian 
native of the country. As he walked the streets of the country, child after child 
would come up to the missionary and beg him for money. Even though he had 
limited funds, it was his inclination to give whatever he could to these poor and 
destitute children. However, his Christian companion quickly admonished him 
that giving into the demands of the children would cause the children more 
harm than good. 

“You see,” his companion said, “these children are trapped by the mafia at 
an early age to go begging in the streets. The crime syndicate breaks their 
fingers and other horrible things are done to them. But if you give in and just 
hand them the money, they will just take the money to the mafia and all it will 
do is perpetuate the problem. You may have thought that you helped the child, 
but all you did was treat a symptom, the cause of the problem will go on and 
on, and future generations of children will fall into the same trap.” 

* This story was told to Craig by an employee of Food for the Hungry, an 
international relief ministry. 

This story also serves as an analogy when it comes to our response to those 
trapped in homosexual behavior. 

As Christians, we find ourselves in a difficult position when it comes to the 
demands of homosexual activists. How can we be compassionate toward those 
trapped in homosexual behavior while not also falling into the trap of enabling 
it? We are called to love our neighbors. For the sincere Christian, this means 
many things (see Matt. 25:31-46) but especially introducing them to the love 
and saving grace of Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:18). And what is the greatest obstacle 
to faith and life in Jesus Christ? It is a person's sinful nature. If a person cannot 
see or be told or be allowed to hear or read that their ignorance, their behavior, 
their sin is blocking them from God's full plan for them, they may miss the 
abundant life, the eternal life that Christ died to provide for all kinds of persons, 
including those trapped in sexually disordered behavior. Nor can they be able to 
understand why Christ had to die for us and be resurrected and emerge 



178 



victorious over sin. 

And speaking the truth in love does not mean telling those who are 
violating God's standards for marriage and sexual activity that what they are 
doing is “OK” in God's eyes. 

A vivid example of the dilemma for Christians is illustrated in the following 
letter that we received at ADF: 

My husband and I became Christians 8 years ago. Our previous 30 plus 
years gives us numerous relationships that we consider our mission field. 
We have many close homosexual friendships that we are continuing to 
maintain in a godly manner. 

Recently, we were invited to a “commitment ceremony.” When the 
invitation was declined I was questioned why? These friends all know our 
commitment to Christ and the lifestyle changes we have made. I stated that 
God's word states that homosexuality is a sin and we cannot support this 
sinful ceremony. You can imagine the justification and denial of God's 
word. We decided to end the conversation because no opinions were being 
changed. 

We have maintained the relationships the past eight years in a loving 
and godly manner. I am so disappointed that when I stated God's Word I 
am told that our friendship cannot continue. I was told that if I cannot 
accept the homosexual lifestyle then I could not be a friend. Who is being 
intolerant? When I became a Christian, I never wanted to sever my 
homosexual friendships. The relationships have changed but [were] never 
denied... 

The barrier to sharing the gospel with an individual trapped in homosexual 
behavior is seemingly higher every day, whether through limits on religious 
freedom or hardened hearts. As Joe Dallas, a former homosexual, has said: “If 
you gave homosexual [activists] everything they want, they still will not be 
satisfied until the church is silenced.” Yet, as Christians, we cannot give up 
trying to share Christ's love, nor the gospel's full message of repentance leading 
to forgiveness and wholeness, even when faced with rejection. Neither can we 
allow our right to share the good news of Christ's love with homosexuals or any 
other persons to be taken away from us. 

It is vital for members of the Body of Christ to understand the homosexual 
agenda and how it threatens many personal and religious freedoms. If we sit 
back and surrender, giving those involved in homosexual behavior everything 
they think they want, we are just like the missionary in Colombia who thought 
he was solving a problem but instead making it worse. The dear man or woman 
lost in the trap of homosexual behavior and relationships will never be able to 
hear and respond to Christ's redemptive love for him or her. 

Not only is our ability to share Christ's love with those trapped in 
homosexual behavior threatened, but our ability to raise our own children to 
know and live the uncensored Christian life and faith is at risk as well. Parental 
rights are also an essential part of religious freedom: the ability to raise and 



179 



guide one's children according to one's beliefs. So what are we to do? 

The letter we just shared with you illustrates a good place for Christians to 
start. Although rejected by her homosexual friends, the writer still tried to be a 
consistent witness and friend to those caught in extramarital sexual behavior. 
Remember, it was the consistent witness and love of a quiet Christian couple — 
not just in words but in deeds — that led John Paulk to Christ. That persistence 
by the couple and the willingness to adjust, without theological compromise, to 
provide what John needed and not push him into a situation that would have 
made him instantly uncomfortable had the great impact. Despite the obstacles 
placed in our paths, we must continue to share the gospel with those who so 
desperately need to hear it, even if it means rejection and even persecution. 

Despite the need for us to demonstrate love and to be a strong witness to 
our fellow citizens, including those who engage in homosexual behavior, we 
cannot compromise on the church's traditional teachings of the gospel and 
people's need for repentance. Unfortunately, this is where many in the church 
and in our culture have stumbled. In our desire to be relevant and to be seen as 
tolerant and loving, we have failed to speak the truth both in love and with love. 
As one internationally known Christian leader says: “We cannot allow [a false 
understanding] of love to trump truth.” In our hope of being accepted, we have 
often backed away from the spiritual battle for the hearts and souls of men. 
Rather than confront the culture, we have often chosen to conform to it. 
Instead of promoting self-fulfillment in our churches, we must get back to 
modeling self-sacrifice. Christ made the ultimate sacrifice for us, and like him, 
we must be humble servants and not haughty judges. We need to point the 
individual trapped in homosexual behavior to the true cross, not a revised, 
meaningless gospel that requires no sacrifice, no repentance, and provides no 
real lasting deliverance from sin and its pain and sorrow. 

We must be willing to be salt and light in our culture, no matter what the 
price. When a television show ridicules fellow Christians or biblical beliefs and 
exalts homosexual behavior, we should speak out. For an effective example of 
what speaking out can accomplish we can look at what has happened in New 
York City. After years of blatant anti-Catholic bigotry on the Broadway stage, no 
play is presently running there that ridicules Catholicism. Why? Because of the 
brave stand taken by one man, William Donahue of the Catholic League, who 
has made sure, through his protests and effective use of the media, that there is 
a price to be paid for bashing Catholics. 

We must not remain silent, we must speak up, when Christ and his 
teachings are ridiculed and sexual deviancy is exalted. This includes the media, 
our public schools, our elected officials, and our workplace. There may be a 
price that we will all have to pay, but whatever that price is, we must remember 
it pales in comparison to the price Christ paid for us. If we stay silent, our 
children and grandchildren will reap the consequences of our apathy. 

Our voice must be consistent: we must love homosexual men and women, 
and because of this love for them we must want to see them redeemed from a 
lifestyle of certain, ultimate despair. John Paulk, Melissa Fryrear, Mike Haley, 
Teresa Britton, and so many others are living testaments to the joy and healing 



180 



— through faith in Jesus Christ — available to the person who escapes from 
homosexual behavior. 

We need to support ministries that provide outreach and are trying to 
minister to the homosexual, such as Exodus International, Focus on the 
Family's “Love Won Out” conferences, the Church of the Open Door in San 
Rafael, California, and the efforts of individual pastors, priests, rabbis, and 
churches. Organizations advocating homosexual behavior such as the Human 
Rights Campaign, the ACLU, GLAAD, and others, dwarf all of them in 
comparison when it comes to allocation of dollars and other resources. We also 
need to support churches, synagogues, and ministries that have had the courage 
to speak the truth on this issue and confront the agenda of the intolerant 
homosexual activists. 

We need to get involved in legal and public policy matters that will 
determine our nation's future. The Alliance Defense Fund (1 -800-TELL-ADF or 
www.telladf.org) was founded by thirty-five ministry leaders across many 
denominational lines to deal exclusively in the legal arena. Through our God- 
given vision of strategy, training, and funding, we have been able, through God's 
grace, to equip God's people to stand up for religious freedom and for the 
gospel in hundreds of successful cases in our nation's courts. So often we who 
call ourselves “brothers and sisters in Christ” have fought among ourselves, 
while the homosexual advocacy groups and their allies have worked together 
with relative harmony. If we effectively coordinate our strategy by creating 
alliances with other organizations, recruit and train our friends and allies in how 
to respond to and resist the homosexual agenda, and provide the critical 
funding needed to battle on an equal basis with those who wish to silence the 
gospel, we are confident that the threat the homosexual agenda poses to 
religious freedom will be greatly diminished. For many years, the church and 
Christians were essentially AWOL from the courthouse while dozens of legal 
cases were litigated, setting precedents the homosexual activists rely on today. 
We can no longer ignore the legal realm. 

On the political front, we need to be aware of candidates and where they 
stand on the issues. For example, here in Arizona, homosexual advocates 
recently ran for public office as conservative or even profamily Republicans in 
an apparent attempt to deceive conservative voters. While many of these 
candidates went down to defeat once voters became aware of their agenda, the 
Arizona Republic (whose managing editor featured the move of his homosexual 
partner to Phoenix in a news article) spun the story as a victory for homosexual 
activists. That is why we need to look much further than the party label and 
learn about the person who is running. Focus on the Family has state family 
policy councils in more than thirty-five states that can provide you with the 
information you need to make an informed decision. You can get in touch with 
the one for your state by calling 1 -800-A-FAMILY. 

In the public schools, we have already mentioned the need for Christian 
parents to be organized and to confront the school administration head-on 
when it comes to reviewing curriculum. In addition, whether we have any 
children in public schools or not, we must be informed about candidates for 
local school boards or be willing to make the sacrifice and go to school board 



181 



meetings to voice our objections to the homosexual indoctrination of our 
children. It will not be easy. Anyone who goes against the homosexual agenda is 
bound to be ridiculed and vilified and face possible persecution. If we consider 
the fact that the future of our children, grandchildren, and our nation is at 
stake, we must ask ourselves, “Is this too high a price to pay?” We think not. 

Finally and most importantly, we need to pray. We must be on our knees, 
for those in sexual sin, for our children and grandchildren, and for our culture. 
Remember the words of the Lord to Solomon in 2 Chronicles 7:14: “If my 
people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek 
my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will 
forgive their sin and will heal their land” God's promise for those with humble 
and contrite hearts is the same for all generations. 

If God's people get on their knees and do these other things, we are 
confident that the Lord will honor this faithfulness and help turn around the 
seemingly inevitable direction our culture is on with regard to the affirmation of 
homosexual behavior and the silencing of the gospel. 

In 1987, President Ronald Reagan stood in West Berlin and challenged the 
leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, to “tear down this wall.” In 
Berlin, even in his own administration, few shared Reagan's conviction that a 
seemingly, all-powerful Soviet empire was doomed. Yet a few years later not 
only did the wall fall, but the entire Iron Curtain came down with it. With the 
same determination — to stand up to the radical homosexual activist 
community... and to preserve religious freedom — we can and will win. 

Let us conclude with the words of the Most Reverend Peter Jensen, the 
Anglican archbishop of Sydney, Australia. His words sum up beautifully the 
position in which the church finds itself today in response to the threat of the 
homosexual agenda. It is an admonishment and an encouragement to us all: 

Churches must have the courage to win influence back from a secular 
world. The role of the Christian churches. ..today is to speak the truth in 
love.... We have accepted the secular world's verdict that we have nothing 
of importance to say, and we have adjusted ourselves to this reality. We 
have become domesticated.... Instead of explaining and defending the 
Gospel, we have sought the path of relevance.... The Christian Gospel is the 
insertion of truth into the untrustworthy discourse of the world. Some of 
us want to be kind, so loving that we will not speak the truth. The 
therapeutic model of pastoral care has been perverted into mere 
affirmations of human behaviour. Our love is no love, for it refuses this 
great test: will it speak boldly, frankly, truthfully?... One of the chief reasons 
why we have ceased to speak the truth is we are fearful of the reaction of 
those around us.... We have contributed towards the gagging of God, 
perhaps because we are frightened of suffering. But there is one 
fundamental task to which we must be committed, come whatever may: 
Speak the truth in love. 

We must speak the truth in love. We must live the truth in love. This is the 
true love of the gospel. We cannot shy away from this task, regardless of the 



182 



price. We need to ask ourselves: Are we willing to take a stand, to keep the door 
open for the gospel, or are we going to allow it to be silenced? Are we willing to 
share Christ's love with the person trapped in homosexual behavior, or will we 
simply walk by them like the Levite and the priest on the road to Jericho and 
not offer a helping hand? (Luke 10:25-37) 

The answers to those questions will determine the future of marriage, the 
family, culture, and the gospel in America, and of America itself. They will 
determine the futures of millions of hurting individuals in need of a loving 
Father who alone can provide them with the true affirmation, true fulfillment, 
and the true love they so desperately need. And the good news — even a nation's 
heart can turn in a single day (Jonah 3:10). 

Soli Deo Gloria. 



183 



APPENDIX 1 



Background Brief: 

The Future of Tax Exemption and Homosexual 

Behavior 

Question: Could the application of a new legal test, of “strict scrutiny” 
by the United States Supreme Court as proposed in various cases or other 
sex/gender case decisions relating to sodomy and sexual behavior, lead to 
the revocation of church and charitable organization tax exemptions by the 
Internal Revenue Service? 

Answer: In 1983, the High Court found that an organization's tax 
exempt status and deductibility of gifts to that organization can be revoked 
for acts contrary to the “public interest” as determined by the IRS and 
federal courts — even when those acts are based on sincerely held religious 
beliefs. 

Discussion: Many major religious colleges, denominations, churches, 
ministries, and charitable organizations that are tax exempt today differentiate 
(or in the view of intolerant radical activists “discriminate”) on the basis of 
sex/gender and sexual behavior in employment, position, ordination, 
performance of marriage and other ceremonies or sacraments, and many other 
matters based upon their genuinely held religious beliefs. In fact, most of those 
who engage in such practices believe they are acting upon and in conformity 
with “revealed truth” from Scripture and/or tradition. Their future tax 
exemption status is uncertain with the advance of the homosexual legal agenda. 

If the Supreme Court, or a plethora of courts of appeal, adopts a new test — 
a new standard for Constitutional review — for all claims of sex/gender 
discrimination under the same rules and policies that racial discrimination is 
now viewed (i.e., “strict scrutiny”), or decides that the Constitution, public 
policy, or law of the United States protects or provides special privileges for 
sodomy and other homosexual behavior, it is only a matter of time, application 
of legal “logic,” and litigation before it is claimed that sex/gender and sexual 
orientation/behavior “discrimination” is akin to racial discrimination and thus is 
in all instances contrary to public policy and therefore those who engage in such 
actions are not “entitled” to the public “benefit” of tax exemption. 

To put it plainly, there is either a lawful basis to differentiate 
(“discriminate”) between persons based upon sex/gender and/or their forms of 
sexual behavior or there is not. Present sex/gender and sexual behavior law, 
though dramatically changed from one hundred to two hundred years ago, uses 
an “intermediate level” of scrutiny for sex/gender issues, and courts still permit 
differentiation for many things. 



184 



Bob Jones University's sponsors genuinely believed “that the Bible forbade 
interracial dating and marriage.” As a result of those beliefs, the university 
engaged in various practices, finally forbidding interracial marriage or dating by 
enrolled students. The federal courts found Bob Jones's “policies violated the 
clearly defined public policy” and after years of litigation determined that it was 
proper for the IRS, exercising its discretion, to revoke the university's tax 
exempt status. The courts also rejected Bob Jones's arguments that revoking the 
tax exemption violated the Free Exercise of Religion and Establishment Clauses 
of the First Amendment. 

Bob Jones was permitted to “practice its religious beliefs,” though held by 
the government to be discriminatory, but it was prevented from receiving the 
“benefit” of tax exemption and receipt of tax deductible gifts. 

Until 1970, the Internal Revenue Service recognized tax exempt status and 
allowed tax deductions to private schools without regard to their faith-based 
racial policies. In 1970, a federal court decision prohibited the IRS from 
allowing tax exempt status for certain private schools whose admission policies 
discriminated on the basis of race. As a result of that, and subsequent court 
decisions, the IRS revised its policies to state, in part, “the statutory 
requirement of being ‘organized and operated exclusively for religious, 
charitable. ..or educational purposes’ was intended to express the basic common 
law concept [of ‘charity’]... [and] the purpose of the trust may not be illegal or 
contrary to public policy.” 

The Supreme Court, analyzing the government's grant of tax exemptions or 
allowance of deductions, stated: “History buttresses logic to make it clear that, 
to warrant exemption under 501 (c)(3), an institution must.. .be in harmony with the 
public interest. The institution's purpose must not be so at odds with the common 
community conscience as to undermine any public interest that might otherwise be 
conferred ” [emphasis added] 

In its review of the national policy consensus on race, which led the courts 
to conclude that Bob Jones's dating policy was offensive to that policy, the 
Supreme Court specifically noted various congressional acts concurred that 
racial discrimination violated public policy and further noted, “The Executive 
Branch has consistently placed its support behind the eradication of racial 
discrimination” and that “few social or political questions have been more 
vigorously debated.” 

Radical and intolerant homosexual activists are working overtime to equate 
distinctions and differentiation based on sex/gender, sexual orientation, and 
various forms of sexual behavior with the public and thus legal public policy 
equivalent of racial discrimination, despite the dramatic differences. If these 
activists are successful, there is no reason that the IRS and federal courts could 
not make the same findings regarding sex/gender and sexual behavior and that 
such “discrimination” could require revocation of tax exempt status and 
prohibit tax deductible contributions. In the twenty years since this decision, 
the IRS has not expanded the Bob Jones ruling to other forms of 
“discrimination,” but this is no guarantee that it will not do so in the future. 



185 



APPENDIX 2 



Letter to Pastors 




Cary 3. McCalab 

Senior Counsel 



June 4, 2004 

Dear Pastors: 

A great battle rages within otir nation: a battle to determine whether the very foundation 
of our society one man and one woman, joined in marriage will survive. Advocates of same- 
sex "marriage'' fight fiercely for new "rights." focusing on individuals' emotions and 
government benefits. But marriage is more titan feelings and money; its about providing a mom 
and a dad for every child; about building a strong society through time-tested, certain methods 
rather than radical social experiments. Indeed, the very reason that governments choose to 
benefit and regulate marriage is because it is the proven basis for western civilization. 
Proponents of samc-scx “marriage" cannot show otherwise. 

/ write In assure you iltal the Alliance Defense Fund will spare no effort to ensure that 
America "s Christians will not he silenced in the battle for marriage. 

In the past decade, radical advocates of same-sex "marriage" base sought to establish 
new "rights" in Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont. Massachusetts. Arizona, and elsewhere. All but one 
of these battles resulted in their defeat — and pro-homosexual forces may yet be defeated in 
Massachusetts, where court actions and constitutional amendments to defend traditional marriage 
remain very much alive. 

Across America, citizens arc fighting to save marriage by advancing pro-marriage 
legislation at the stale and federal level. Homosexual activists know that their arguments will 
fail if they arc put squarely before our nation's citizens, and they do all that they can to prevent 
the issue from ever coming to a vote. Thus, pro-homosexual groups are threatening churches 
across the nation with the loss of tax-exempt status, and/or they allege that various state political 
campaign laws were violated, when churches simply preach about marriage or allow petitions on 
their property. It is a simple scare tactic, designed to silence Christians. 

Such tactics arc not new. They have been tried time and again, and have consistently 
failed. For example, in 1996. 1 99ft, and 2000. pro-homosexual activists targeted churches that 
supported a proposition in California that defined marriage as being between one man and one 
woman. In one mailing, activists sent out some 80.000 threat letters. See Erik J. Ablin. The 
Price of Not Rendering to Caesar: Restrictions on Church Participation in Political Campaigns, 
13 Notre Dame J. L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 541, 557 (1999). These would-be censors failed to 
suppress Christian speech — the California measure ultimately passed and no church had its tax- 
exempt status revoked. These lactics of hate and intolerance must fail again in 2004. 



186 



Chvnkes. .itarrkigr. amt fVatalo Vo Time far Slkncv 
Jmr 4. ,Y«M 
Paicr 2 vf 4 

By this letter, we assure you that churches have broad constitutional rights to express 
their views on m arriag e. as explained belo w, Furthermore. other activities st»ch as allowing 
parishioners to sign petitions for legislative action to protect marriage are almost undoubtedly 
permissible under federal tax law. In the same way, the First Amendment to the United States 
Constitution most likely prevents states from demanding that churches register as a “political 
committee" or report "contributions" when the ehurehes merely preach about marriage or ullow 
petitions to he signed at their facilities. 

If you nrc contacted by any government offic i al or private a ct ivisi group on such issues. 
please call us immediately. The Alliance Defense Fund's attorneys will promptly review your 
situation and make every effort to defend your church's legal rights to speak freely in support of 
marriage. Below we briclly discuss the relevant law. 

I.«»l Analysis; Federal tax lass 

There arc two broad areas of concern regarding the ell'ect of political aclivily by churches 
that hold tax exempt status under Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") § 501(c)(3). First, the IRC 
prohibits ehurehes from participating or uitctvcmug in the political campaign of a candidate for 
public office- However, the IRC is much more accommodating in regard to churches that work 
to influence legislation, allowing such actis ity so king as a "substantial pan" of church efforts is 
not devoted to such activities. This "legislative" issue is what we are concerned about here. 

Fortunately, the courts understand that advocating morality, both in church and in civil 
life, is properly at the heart of religious failh: 

Religion includes a way of life as well as beliefs upon Ihc nature of the world and 
the admonitions to be "Doers of the word and not hearers only" (James 1 :22) ansi 
"(io ye therefore. and teach all nations . . (Matthew 28: 19) are as old as ihc 
Christian Church. The slop from accep tance by ihc bvlieycr to his tcckinit to 
influence others in th e same direc tion is a perfectly natural on e, and is found in 
countles s religious groups. 

Girard Trust Co v. Comm r, 122 F.2d I0K, 1 10 (3d Cir. 1941) (emphasis added; omission in 
original). As the Supreme Court pul it. "fa |dhercnts of particular faiths and individual churches 
frequently take strong positions on public issues including . . . vigorous advocacy of legal or 
constitutional positions. Of course, churches as much as secular bodies, and private citizens 
have that (constitutional | right." I Vat: v. Tax Comm Vi, 397 U.S. 66-1, 670 ( 1969). 

Whether a church devotes a "substantial" port of its resources to influencing legislation is 
a question of facts and circumstances, Kentucky Bur Foundation, Ini , v. Commissioner. 78 T.C. 
971 (1982). and courts have taken dilferent approaches to the matter. For example, in 
Seasongood v Commissioner, 227 F,2d 907 (6th Cir. 1955), the court established a live percent 
(5%) sale harbor rule based on total expenditures applied to legislative activities. Id. at 912. 
More recently, the decision in World Family Corporation v. Commissioner, SI T C. 958 ( 1983) 
raised that bar when the Tax Court ruled that an exempt organization's lobbying activ ities w hich 
utilized between five and ten percent of the group's resources were "insubstantial." 



187 



( huixhfx. .Uarrtogr, axd f\dtik » .Vo Time far .Citron- 

J*ru- 4. XXM 

raxrJcf4 

h should be noted that one court relied on a balancing test, rather than a percentage of 
expenditures, in determining that a tax exempt religious organization had devoted a “substantial 
part" of its resources to influencing legislation. Srr Christian Echoes Stu V Ministry, Inc. v. US . 
470 F.2d 849 (10th Cir. 1972). This court observed that the percentage test obscured the 
“complexity of balancing the organization's activities in relation to its objectives and 
circumstances." Id. at 855. 

The Christian Echoes court stated that “the political [activities of a charity) must be 
balanced in the context of the objectives and circumstances of the organization to determine 
whether a substantial pun of its objectives (not just expenditures] was to influence or attempt to 
influence legislation.” Id. However, the lobbying undertaken by the Christian Echoes ministry 
went far beyond simply preaching about a moral issue or circulating petitions for proposed 
legislation. Rather, the group “attempted to mold public opinion in civil rights legislation, 
medicare, the Postage Revision Act of 1967. the Honest Election Law of l%7. the Nuclear Test 
Ban Treaty, the Panama Canal Treaty, firearms control legislation, and the Outer Space Treaty." 
Id. It urged its supporters to lake no less than 22 different actions to influence American and 
international politics, including urging congressional representatives to support or oppose 
specific bills, abolish the federal income tax. withdraw from the United Nations, and so on. Id. 
Under these unusual facts— irtcludiog.suppc’f.l _uf candidates as well as legislation -the Christian 
Echoes court found that the defendant organization had devoted a "substantial part" of its 
resources to lobbying and affirmed the revocation of its tax exempt status. Id. at 858. 

Unless a church has an extensive history of lobbying efforts (as exemplified by the 
Christian Echoes ease) it is extremely unlikely that simple efforts to defend marriage, such as 
preaching about marriage or making petitions available to be signed -would be seen as a 
"substantial” portion of church resources. Such activities should be entirely permissible under 
federal tax law, Certainly, a church that devotes less than live percent of its resources to 
influencing legislation should be on very safe ground in this respect. 

Stale Political Campaign l aw 

Stale governments have an interest in informing the public about campaign financing. 
The theory is that such information helps voters evaluate which interests are supporting 
particular legislation. See. c.g.. Buckley v. Valeo. 424 U.S. I (1976) (upholding federal 
campaign disclosure requirements). Yet however strong that interest may be. it does not justify 
imposing campaign law willy-nilly on churches dial incidentally support legislation. 

It is not possible to consider the political campaign laws of each slate in this brief letter. 
Nonetheless, any requirement that a church register as a “political action committee*' or report 
“expenditures" supporting legislation, simply because the church preached about marriage or 
allowed parishioners to sign petitions, raises serious questions under the Free Speech Clause and 
Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United Slates Constitution. 

Indeed, the courts have recognized dial applying broadly worded campaign reporting 
statutes to groups that do not engage in substantial advocacy would violate the First Amendment 
For example, in New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce v. New Jersey Election l.aw 



188 



{'JhwrAr*. UarrUgt. aaj /WUurv So Time for Silence 
June 4, .WW 
fog* 4 of 4 

Enforcement Commission. 411 A. 2d 16K (N.J. 1980). various secular groups challenged a 
campaign reporting law as being unconstitutionally overbroad because it was triggered by 
virtually any communication between a private person and a legislator which sought to 
"influence" legislation. The court held that the law was constitutional, but only if it was 
narrowly construed so that it applied “only to persons whose direct, express, and intentional 
communication with legislators for the purpose of affecting the outcome of legislation arc 
undertaken on a s ubsta ntial basis." hi. at 1 79. accord Bemis Pentecostal Church v. Tennessee, 
731 S.W.2d 897 (Tain. 1987) (holding church responsible to report expenditures for purchasing 
media advertisements that opposed specific liquor legislation, bo! also held that broadcast ing the 
church's religious services and distributing church newsletters, even if advocating a particular 
election result, were not subject to campaign law). In other words, campaign law- is not carte 
blanche tor the government to limit private church speech or religious exercise. 

Other issues are implicated by unlimited application of state political campaign laws to 
churches. For example, demanding that churches register as "political committees" would 
operate as a “prior restraint" on speech, which is strongly disfavored under the U. S. Supreme 
Court's First Amendment jurisprudence. Similarly, it would chill the speech of other churches 
that would rightfully fear investigation and possible punishment by state election officials. Both 
situations offer solid bases to invalidate a stale campaign taw if that law were applied to churches 
in this context. 

Homosexual activists' outrageous, intolerant effort to slop churches from expressing their 
faith will succeed only if pastors succumb to fear and stand mute when marriage is attacked. But 
nothing in the law supports these activists' demands, and no pastor should yield to fear. Rather, 
pastors can (and should) speak clearly regarding moral truth and freely participate in the political 
processes within the limits set forth by our laws. 

This material is a brief overv iew of a complex area of the law and should not be 
construed as legal advice relevant to a particular church's situation. If you have any questions or 
believe your church’s rights were violated, please feel free to contact us at the Alliance Defense 
Fund. 



Sinecrety 

Gary S. Mct'alcb 
Senior Counsel 



189 



Notes 



Introduction 

1 Testimony of John Paulk, given at Focus on the Family, October 31, 2001. 

2 Ibid. 

3 Robert S. Hogg and others, “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality 
in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997), 657. 

4 Eileen E. Flynn, “Former Lesbian Discusses Life-Changing Experience,” Austin 
American-Statesman, February 16, 2003. 

5 Robert Stacy McCain, “Kansas Pastor's Brimstone for Gays Draws Some 
Hellfire: Both Christians and Homosexuals Attack Brutal Tactics,” Washington 
Times, July 14, 1999. 

6 Marco R. della Cava, “Church Calls Acts ‘Disordered,’ Gays Feel Blamed,” USA 
Today, June 12, 2002. 

Chapter One — How Did We Get Here? 

1 The Advocate, June 2004. 

2 Alissa J. Rubin, “Public More Accepting of Gays, Poll Finds,” Los Angeles 
Times, June 18, 2000. 

3 Gene Edward Veith, “News They Can Use,” World, October 12, 2002. 

4 Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill, “The Overhauling of Straight America,” 
Guide, November 1987. 

5 Ibid. 

6 Rona Marech, “Nuances of Gay Identities Reflected in New Language, 
‘Homosexual’ is Passe in a ‘Boi's’ Life,” San Francisco Chronicle, February 8, 2004. 

7 Ibid. 

8 Ibid. 

9 Kirk and Pill, “Overhauling.” 

10. Ibid. 

11. Ibid. 

12. Michael Weisskopf, “Energized by Public or Passion, the Public is Calling: 
‘Gospel Grapevine’ Displays Strength in Controversy over Military Gay Ban,” 
Washington Post, February 1, 1993. 

13. Julia Duin, “NBC Flooded with Calls after Couric's Remarks: Family Groups 
Irked at Links to Death of Gay Man,” Washington Times, October 16, 1998. 

14. Deborah Mathis, “Many Share in the Hate-Filled Killing of Gay Student,” 
Orlando Sentinel, October 15, 1998. 



190 



15. Robert B. Bluey, “Documents Reveal San Francisco Mayor's Ties to 
Homosexual Activists,” CNSNews.com., June 21, 2004. 

16. Kirk and Pill, “Overhauling.” 

17. Star Parker, “Gay Politics, Black Reality,” Townhall.com, January 12, 2004. 

18. Christopher Curtis, “Jesse Jackson: Gay Marriage Rights are Not Civil 
Rights,” PlanetOut.com, February 17, 2004. 

19. Kirk and Pill, “Overhauling.” 

20. “The 2000 Census and Same-Sex Households: A User's Guide,” published by 
the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute. 

21. Jim Hopkins, “QuarkXPress Grew out of Shy Guy's Love of Solitude, Now 
He's a Huge Philanthropist,” USA Today, August 15, 2001. 

22. Valerie Richardson, “Money Can Buy You Love: The Gill Foundation's Uphill 
Battle for Gay Rights,” Philanthropy, September/October 2000, 22. 

23. Jim Hopkins, “Gay Entrepreneurs Pour Tech Cash into Causes,” GFN.com, 
June 19, 2001. See http://www.gfn.com/business/story.phtml? sid = 9689. 

24. Hopkins, “QuarkXPress.” 

25. Richardson, “Money Can Buy.” 

26. Gina Perales, “PrideFest Draws 4,000,” Colorado Springs Gazette, August 28, 
2000 . 

27. Ed Sealover, “Same-Sex Partners Get City Benefits,” Colorado Springs Gazette, 
November 8, 2002. 

28. Frank Eltman, “Bronx Attorney Named New Head of American Civil Liberties 
Union,” Associated Press, May 1, 2001. 

29. The American Civil Liberties Union: Freedom Is Why We're Here, ACLU 
position paper. Fall 1999. 

30. Robyn E. Blumner, “ACLU National Director Retires for Much More 
Freedom,” Saint Petersburg Times, September 3, 2000. Also see “Individual 
Donor Sets Record with $7 Million Donation,” ACLU press release, July 18, 
2001. 

31. “Ford Foundation Gives $7 Million to ACLU Endowment Campaign,” ACLU 
press release, June 28, 1999. 

32. Internet News Bureau, “The ACLU on Morality: Special Web Collection on 
‘Public Morality’ Launched,” November 13, 1998. 

33. See http://www.lambdalegal.org. 

34. See http://www.hrc.org/corporate/index.asp. 

35. Hopkins, “Gay Entrepreneurs Pour.” 

36. Ibid. 

37. Ibid. 

38. Ibid. 

39. Washington Blade, January 30, 1991. 



191 



40. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1971), 230. 

41. Ibid., 232. 

42. Ibid., 276. 

43. Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen, After the Ball (New York, N.Y.: 
Plume/Doubleday, 1990), 154. 

44. Ibid., 161. 

45. Ibid., 163. 

Chapter Two — That's Entertainment? 

1 Michael Lipton and Craig Tomashoff, “Will Power: Happily Married Eric 
McCormack Plays a Gay Lawyer on Will & Grace,” People, October 26, 1998. 

2 Correspondence between Mike Haley of Focus on the Family and Jon 
Kinnally. 

3 “Iowa Study Suggests Tolerance of Homosexuals is Growing,” Associated 
Press, March 23, 2001. 

4 Ibid. 

5 Ibid. 

6 Murray Dub in, “Hollywood Living a Fantasy Where Gay Actors Concerned,” 
Houston Chronicle, August 18, 1985. 

7 Peter Stack, “Discovering Who's ‘Out’ at the Movies: Encyclopedist Tried to 
Respect Gay Stars' Privacy,” San Francisco Chronicle, December 28, 1994. 

8 Dub in, “Hollywood Living.” 

9 Dennis Drabelle, “The Box Office King of 1930,” Washington Post, January 18, 
1998. 

10. Barry Paris, “Letter Bombs? Museum Will Open Garbo Correspondence to 
Alleged Socialite Lover ,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette , April 13, 2000. 

11. Stack, “Discovering Who's ‘Out’.” 

12. Ibid. 

13. Joanne Weintraub, “Homosexuality Was the Key to Cukor's Hollywood 
Success,” Capitol Times, November 22, 2000. 

14. Eleanor Ringel, “George Cukor: A Double Life,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 
February 2, 1992. 

15. Michelangelo Signorile, “Our Gay Century,” Advocate, 2000. 

16. Stephen Hunter, “Gay or Not, Cary Grant's Image is Unflickering,” 
Washington Post, June 5, 1997. 

17. Joe Newlin, “Drama Queens,” New Orleans Times-Picayune , January 13, 
2002. 

18. Burt Styler and Norman Lear, “Judging Books by Covers,” All in the Family, 
dir. John Rich, aired February 9, 1971. 



192 



19. Bob Schiller and Bob Weisskopf, “Cousin Liz,” All in the Family, story by 
Barry Harmon and Harve Brosten, dir. Paul Bogart, aired October 9, 1977. 

20. Bob Schiller and others, “Edith's Crisis of Faith,” All in the Family, dir. Paul 
Bogart, aired December 18 and 25, 1977. 

21. Jerry Reiger and Gary Moskowitz, “George,” M*A*S*H, dir. Gene Reynolds, 
aired February 16, 1974. 

22. Christine Sparta, “Emergence from the Closet,” USA Today, March 11, 2002. 

23. Ibid. 

24. Ken Levine and David Isaacs, “The Boys in the Bar,” Cheers, dir. James 
Burrows, aired January 27, 1983. 

25. See the final report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography, 
1986. 

26. David Tuller, “Ellen's Coming Out No Shock to Gays, Lesbians in S.F.,” San 
Francisco Chronicle, April 8, 1997. 

27. Kinney Littlefield, “‘Ellen’ to Show a Bit of Gentle Puppy Love,” Orange 
County Register, April 9, 1997. 

28. Bruce Handy, “Roll Over Ward Cleaver,” Time, April 14, 1997. 

29. “Vows ,” Ellen, aired July 22, 1998. 

30. Joanne Weintraub, “Ellen Finds New Place on TV,” Milwaukee Journal- 
Sentinel, July 26, 2001. 

31. Some of the most notable failures have included John Goodman's sitcom 
Normal, Ohio; Some of My Best Friends on CBS; and Ellen DeGeneres's second 
attempt. The Ellen Show, on CBS. 

32. See http://www.glaad.org. 

33. Ibid. 

34. Campbell, “Gays on Prime Time.” 

35. Ibid. 

36. Don Kaplan, “Don't Call Her a ‘He,’” New York Post, August 21, 2001. 

37. Matthew Gilbert, “Sexual Identity Getting Difficult to Keep Straight,” Boston 
Globe, July 1, 2004. 

38. Elizabeth Snead, “Gellar Seduced by ‘Cruel’ Opportunity,” USA Today, March 
8, 1999. 

39. Adam Buckman, “Kiss of Death — Tonight's Girl-Girl Friends' Lip-Lock Means 
It's Over,” New York Post, April 26, 2001. 

40. Lisa de Moraes, “The Smooch That Drew a Crowd,” Washington Post, 
November 4, 1999. 

41. Tanya Richardson, “‘Gilmore Girls’ Goes Wild with Girl-on-Girl Kiss,” New 
York Post, April 7, 2004. 

42. Barbara D. Phillips, “TV: A Straight-On Look at Gay Life,” Wall Street Journal, 
November 27, 2000. 



193 



43. Kim Campbell, “Gay Characters, Before and After ‘Ellen,’” Christian Science 
Monitor, April 6, 2001. 

44. “TV Show Depicts Gay ‘Teen’ Character,” WorldNetDaily.com, January 23, 
2004. 

45. Joe Flint, “Viacom Plans a Gay Channel, but Reception Isn't Clear,” Wall 
Street Journal, March 29, 2004. 

46. J. Max Robins, “Gay Network Could Debut within a Year,” TV Guide, 

January 7, 2002. 

47. “Channels Race to Launch Gay TV,” Associated Press, May 1, 2002. 

48. Brent Bozell, “More Gays, More Often?” Creators Syndicate, January 31, 

2002. 

49. Ibid. 

50. Ibid. 

51. “MTV Networks to Launch LOGO, A New Television Network for Gay, 
Lesbian Viewers,” U.S. Newswire Press Releases, May 25, 2004. 

52. Some notable examples were Sunday Bloody Sunday, The Lion in Winter 
(which featured an implied homosexual relationship), and Women in Love. 

53. Bernard Weinraub, “Play a Gay? More Actors Say ‘Yes’ to Portraying Gay 
Characters,” New York Times, September 14, 1997. 

54. Ibid. 

55. David Lyman, “‘Philadelphia’ Goes Beyond AIDS,” Cincinnati Post, January 
14, 1994. 

56. Bill Zwecker, “Hanks Pays Tribute to Gays in His Life,” Chicago Sun-Times, 
March 22, 1994. 

57. Richard Lorent, “Speech Brings Praise from Tom Hanks' Former Drama 
Teacher,” Associated Press, March 23, 1994. 

58. James P. Pinkerton, “Hollywood Honors a Subversive Take on Suburbia,” 
Newsday, March 28, 2000. 

59. “Sharon Osbourne, I Wish I Had ‘Gay’ Child,” WorldNetDaily.com, March 31, 
2004. 

60. “Iowa Study Suggests Tolerance of Homosexuals Is Growing,” Associated 
Press, March 23, 2001. 

61. Hogg and others, “Modeling the Impact of HIV.” 

Chapter Three — u Stupid” Parents, “ Enlightened ” Kids 

1 Don Feder, “Welcome to the NEA-Dominated Schoolhouse,” Creators 
Syndicate, September 5, 2001. 

2 Debra Saunders, “Gay-Ed for Tots,” Weekly Standard, August 19, 1996, 21. 

3 John Chase, “School's Gay-Straight Group Offers Teens a Place to Fit In,” 
Chicago Daily-Herald, June 7, 1998. 



194 



4 “Teens and Adults Have Little Chance of Accepting Christ as Their Savior,” 
Bama Research Online, November 15, 1999. See http://www.bama.org. 

5 Torres, “Conference ‘New Moment.’” 

6 Ibid. 

7 NEA 1999-2000 Resolutions, B-9, “Racism, Sexism, and Sexual Orientation 
Discrimination.” See www.nea.org/resolutions/99/99b-9.html. 

8 Matt Pyeatt, “NEA Task Force Issues Report on Sexual Orientation,” 
CNSNews.com, February 13, 2002. 

9 John Rossomondo, “NEA Mum about Homosexuality Task Force,” 
CNSNews.com, August 15, 2001. 

10. Katy Kelly, “Gay Parents Get Endorsed by Kids' Docs,” U.S. News and World 
Report, February 18, 2002. 

11. “Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, 
Educators, and School Personnel,” authored by American Academy of 
Pediatrics, National Education Association and others, 3, 8, 9. 

12. David Gelman, “Tune In, Come Out,” Newsweek, November 8, 1993, 70. 

13. Ibid. 

14. Rona Marech, “Nuances of Gay Identities Reflected in New Language, 
‘Homosexual’ is Passe in a ‘Boi's’ Life,” San Francisco Chronicle, February 8, 2004. 

15. Laura Sessions Stepp, “Partway Gay? For Some Teen Girls, Sexual Preference 
is a Shifting Concept,” Washington Post, January 4, 2004. 

16. Gelman, “Tune In, Come Out.” 

17. Rob Dreher, “Banned in Boston: Better Not Complain about the Gay Agenda 
for Massachusetts Schools,” Weekly Standard, July 3-10, 2000, 16. 

18. See http://www.glsen.org. 

19. Saunders, “Gay-Ed for Tots.” 

20. Ibid. 

21. Ibid. 

22. Resolution B-69: Home Schooling, see 
http://www.nea.org/resolutions/01/01b-69.html. 

23. Women's Educational Media, It's Elementary, dir. Debra Chasnoff. 

24. Pete Winn and Kristie Rutherford, “Antifamily Agenda Becomes Law in 
California,” Focus on the Family Citizen Link, October 16, 2001. See 
http:// www. family. org/cfomm/feature/aOO 1 8 1 50. html. 

25. “Teachers Vote to Lobby for Gay Schoolbooks,” Canadian Press, August 15, 
2001. 

26. Michael Betsch, “Homosexual Activists Want to Silence Nation's Youth,” 
CNSNews.com, April 8, 2002. 

27. Melanie Hunter, “Family Group Threatens to Sue Homosexual Activists over 
Day of Silence,” CNSNews.com, April 9, 2002. 



195 



28. Peter LaBarbera, “When Silence Would Have Been Golden,” Culture and 
Family Institute, April 10, 2002. 

29. Ibid. 

30. Ibid. 

31. Ibid. 

32. “Make It Real: A Student Organizing Manual for Implementing California's 
School Nondiscrimination Law,” ©2001, Gay-Straight Alliance Network/Tides 
Center and Friends of Project 10, pp. 5, 19, 44, and 50. 

33. Robert B. Bluey, “Teachers Urged to Ignore GLSEN's Marriage Curriculum,” 
CNSNews.com, May 26, 2004. 

34. Dreher, “Banned in Boston.” 

35. Women's Educational Media, It's Elementary. 

36. Ibid. 

37. Ibid. 

38. “Falling Boulder,” World, February 14, 2004. 

39. “K-12 Academy Hosts ‘Queer State of the Union,’” WorldNetDaily.com, 
March 4, 2004. 

40. “Education Priorities,” Fox News, January 7, 2002. 

41. Carol Innerst, “‘Diversity’ Leads to Classes in Homosexuality: Parents Seek to 
Control Curriculum,” Washington Times, November 25, 1997. 

42. Ibid. 

43. Ibid. 

44. E-mail from Alliance Defense Fund volunteer attorney, March 5, 2002. 

45. John Haskins, “It's 1984 in Massachusetts — And Big Brother is Gay,” Insight 
on the News, December 17, 2001. 

46. Ibid. 

47. Ibid. 

48. Ibid. 

49. Ibid. 

50. Ibid. 

51. Ibid. 

52. Ibid. 

53. Cheryl Wetzstein, “Educator Gets Laughs, Lawsuit With Her Hot Talk about 
Safe Sex,” Washington Times, March 20, 1994. 

54. Cheryl Wetzstein, “Sex Teacher Faces Suit for High School Performance,” 
Washington Times, March 7, 1994. 

55. Jerry Taylor, “In Face of Suit, Landolphi Wins Chelmsford Student Support,” 
Boston Globe, September 5, 1993. 

56. Joe Heaney, “Massachusetts Students Lose Suit over School Sex Program,” 



196 



Boston Herald, March 5, 1996. 

57. Dreher, “Banned in Boston.” 

58. Ibid. 

59. “‘Gay’ Sex Trainer Regains Job, Back Pay,” WorldNetDaiIy.com, August 23, 
2001. 

60. Scott Lively, “Gay Days at Santa Rosa High School.” See 
http://www.abidingtruth.com. 

61. See http://www.centeryes.org/SIGNS/upcoming/index.html. 

62. “In Groundbreaking Federal Lawsuit Settlement, School Agrees to Strongest 
Antigay Harassment Program in Nation,” ACLU press release, August 13, 2002. 

63. Christopher Michaud, “Survey: Students Hold Mostly Progay Views,” 
Reuters, August 27,2001. 

64. Ibid. 

65. “Assault on Gay America” Viewers Guide. See 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/ diversity/assault. 

66. See Carroll Smith-Rosenberg, Disorderly Conduct: Visions of Gender in 
Victorian America (Oxford University Press, 1999). 

67. Josh White, “In the District, Walking with Pride: ‘Out in DC Tours Explore 
Events That Shaped Gay History,” Washington Post, August 23, 1998. 

68. Samara Kalk, “Lincoln Was Gay, Activist Contends,” Madison Capital Times, 
February 23, 1999. 

69. Ibid. 

70. Jessica Kowal, “School Debate: Teach Gay Issues,” Newsday October 17, 
1999. 

71. “U.S. Teens Struggle with History,” Associated Press, July 3, 2001. 

72. Marilyn Elias, “Gay Teens Less Suicidal than Thought, Report Says,” USA 
Today, November 26, 2001. 

73. Rhonda Smith, “P-FLAG Receives Grant for $250,000: Funds Will Expand 
Organization's National Safe Schools Campaign,” Washington Blade, July 16, 
2001. 

74. Gelman, “Tune In, Come Out.” 

75. Haskins, “It's 1984.” 

Chapter Four — The Lavender Tower 

1 “Comedy and Tragedy: College Course Descriptions and What They Tell Us 
about Higher Education Today,” Young America's Foundation, 2002, 14. See 
http : //www. yaf.org. 

2 Ibid., 16. 

3 Ibid., 25. 



197 



4 Ibid., 32. 

5 Ibid., 43. 

6 Ibid., 43. 

7 Ibid., 53. 

8 Ibid., 60. 

9 Ibid., 62. 

10. Ibid., 64. 

11. Ibid., 65. 

12. Ibid., 65. 

13. Ibid., 67. 

14. Ibid., 74. 

15. Ibid., 77. 

16. Anne D. Neal, Exfemina, Independent Women's Forum, April 2001. 

17. University of Colorado course catalog (www.colorado.edu). 

18. Jason Pierce, “Tax Money Aids Homosexual Scholarship Fund,” 
CNSNews.com, September 19, 2001. 

19. Patrick Healy, “College Recruiters Look to Gays but Schools See Problem in 
Identifying Students,” Boston Globe, May 21, 2002. 

20. Ibid. 

21. Ibid. 

22. Gene Edward Veith, “Gay Authority,” World, June 1, 2002, 13. 

23. See www.Uaw.ucla.edu/~williamsproj/about/index.html. 

24. Ibid. 

25. Ibid. 

26. Scott Norvell, “PETA Protests Gay Dorms, Soda Jerks,” Fox News, May 20, 
2002. 

27. William Hermann, “First Lesbian Sorority is Organized at ASU,” Arizona 
Republic, February 18, 2004. 

28. Gene Edward Veith, “Identity Crisis,” World, March 27, 2004, 27. 

29. Ibid. 

30. Joyce Howard Price, “Transgender Restrooms Urged for Schools,” 
Washington Times, February 11, 2002. 

31. George Orwell, Animal Farm (White Plains, N.Y.: Longman Publishing Group, 
1946). 

32. Chronicle of Higher Education, August 7, 1998, BIO. 

33. Jeremy Beer, “Postmodern Paradise,” Countumacy, January 2, 1998. 

34. Merrell Noden, “Edmund White's Own Story,” Princeton Alumni Weekly, 
March 10, 2004. 



198 



35. Ron Grossman, “At Notre Dame, A Gay Film Fest,” Chicago Tribune, February 
11, 2004. 

36. Mattingly, “Campus Christian Groups.” 

37. Ibid. 

38. Ibid. 

39. John Leo, “Playing That Bias Card,” U.S. News and World Report, January 13, 
2003. 

40. Laura Ingraham, “Universities Throwing Christians to the Lions,” Laura 
Ingraham E-Blast, January 6, 2003. 

41. Rachel Zabarkes, “Desperately Seeking Diversity,” National Review Online, 
August 1, 2002. 

42. “Students Protest Blood Drive Screening,” Associated Press, March 17, 2004. 

43. Laura Mansnerus, “Court Revives Lesbians' Suit over Housing,” New York 
Times, July 3, 2001. 

44. Seth Lewis, “Court Lets Homosexuals Sue for Access to Married Housing,” 
CNSNews.com, July 2, 2001. 

45. “Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom in the State of Virginia,” 
1779 Papers 2:545. 

46. Southworth v. Board of Regents University of Wisconsin System, 221 F3d 1339 
(7th Cir. 2000). 

47. Eugene Abel and others, “Self-Reported Sex Crimes of Nonincarcerated 
Pedophiliacs,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 3 No. 5 (1987). 

48. K. Freud and R. I. Watson, “The Proportions of Heterosexual and 
Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders against Children: An Exploratory 
Study ,” Journal of Marital Therapy, Vol. 34, 1992, 34 — 43. 

49. W. D. Erickson and others, “Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters,” Archives 
of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 17, 1988. 

50. M. Tomeo, D. Templar, S. Anderson, D. Kotler, “Comparative Data of 
Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual 
Persons,” Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 30, No. 3, 2001, 535-531. 

51. “No Place for Homo-Homophobia,” San Francisco Sentinel, March 26, 1992. 

52. Edward Brongersma, “Boy-Lovers and Their Influence on Boys,” Journal of 
Homosexuality, Vol. 20, No. 1/2 (1990), 162. 

53. “The Real Child Abuse,” Guide, July 1995. 

54. Bruce Rind, Ph.D., Robert Bauserman, Ph.D., and Phillip Tromovitch, Ph.D., 
“An Examination of Assumed Properties Based on Nonclinical Samples,” 
presented at the Paulus Kirk, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, December 18, 1998. 

55. American Psychiatric Association, “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of 
Mental Disorders,” DSM-IV-TR, Fourth Edition, No. 302.2, p. 571. 

56. “Child Sex Abuse Study Denounced,” Associated Press, July 13, 1999. 



199 



57. Robert Stacy McCain, “Endorsement of Adult-Child Sex on Rise,” Washington 
Times, April 19, 2002. 

58. Ibid. 

59. Ibid. 

60. Chuck Colson, “Apples, Teachers, and Serpents: Academia's Assault on Our 
Children,” Breakpoint, September 24, 2002. This quote is also posted on the 
Web site of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). 

61. John Leo, “Apologists for Pedophilia,” U.S. News.com, April 22, 2002. 

62. Jennifer Walsh, “Make Sex Education a Topic for the Pulpit, Black Pastors 
Are Urged,” Boston Globe, July 7, 2000. 

63. “Mainstream Book Advocating Adult-Child Sex Draws Howls of Protest,” Fox 
News, April 2, 2002. 

64. McCain, “Endorsement of Adult-Child.” 

65. Leo, “Apologists for Pedophilia.” 

66. Jodi Wilgoren, “Scholar's Pedophilia Essay Stirs Outrage and Revenge,” New 
York Times, April 30, 2002. 

67. Ibid. 

68. “Pedophilia for Progressives,” Wall Street Journal, May 6, 2002. 

Chapter Five — The Family under Attack 

1 Jeff Jacoby, “The End of the Gay Marriage Debate?” Boston Globe, May 17, 
2004. 

2 Veith, “Doing without Marriage.” 

3 Stanley Kurtz, “Slipping Toward Scandinavia,” National Review Online, 
February 2, 2004. 

4 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health 
Statistics, “Births to Unmarried Mothers, 1980-92” and assorted national and 
monthly vital statistics reports. 

5 Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, 1996. 

6 Veith, “Doing without Marriage.” 

7 Stanley Kurtz, “The Marriage Mentality,” National Review Online, May 4, 2004. 

8 “Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage: A Conference on National European 
and International Law,” King's College at the University of London, July 1-3, 
1999. 

9 “Netherlands OKs Gay Marriages,” Associated Press, September 13, 2000. 

10. “Parliamentary Vote Turns Belgium Into Second Country to Approve Gay 
Marriages,” CBCNews, January 31, 2003. 

11. “Spain's New Government to Legalize Gay Marriage,” Reuters, April 15, 

2004. 



200 



12. Alister Doyle, “Norwegian Finance Minister Marries Gay Partner,” Reuters, 
January 15, 2002. 

13. “Germany's First Gay Couple Wed,” CNN, August 1, 2001. 

14. Malcolm Thomberry, “Restricting TG Marriage Illegal, European Court 
Rules,” 365Gay.com, January 8, 2004. 

15. David Frum, “The Fall of France,” National Review, November 8, 1999. 

16. Chris Crain, “Gays May Ruin Traditional Marriage,” New York Blade, August 
3, 2001. 

17. Stanley Kurtz, “Going Dutch?” The Weekly Standard, May 31, 2004. 

18. Suzanne Fields, “‘Queer Eye’ for the Straight Courtship, Tribune Media 
Services, March 11, 2004. 

19. Gene Edward Veith, “Wages for Sin: Marriage Benefits Are Starting to Go to 
Those Who Are Shacking Up,” World, August 18, 2001. 

20. “All Together Now,” The Advocate, September 11, 2001. 

21. George W. Dent Jr., “The Defense of Traditional Marriage,” Journal of Law 
and Politics, Vol. XV, No. 4, Fall 1999, 628-637. 

22. ACLU Policy Guide, 1992. 

23. “Boston Globe to Cover Gay Unions,” Associated Press, September 29, 2002. 

24. Richard Ostling, “Same-Sex Marriages? Civil Unions? A Gay Theologian 
Thinks They're Only the Beginning,” Associated Press, January 28, 2004. 

25. “Same-sex Couple Flaunts ‘Open Marriage,”’ WorldNetDaily.com, May 18, 
2004. 

26. Elizabeth F. Emens, Monogamy's Law: Compulsory Monogamy and Polyamorous 
Existence, Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 58, The Law School, 
The University of Chicago, February 2003, 
www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/publiclaw/index.html. 

27. Don Lattin, “Committed to Marriage for the Masses, Polyamorists Say They 
Relate Honestly to Multiple Partners,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 20, 2004. 

28. Alexandria Sage, “Attorney Challenges Utah Polygamy Ban,” Associated 
Press, January 26, 2004. 

29. Mark Thiessen, “Utah Polygamist Invokes Ruling on Gay Sex,” Associated 
Press, December 1, 2003. 

30. Camille Paglia, “I'll Take Religion over Gay Culture,” Salon.com, June 1998. 

31. “Uncle Sam Should Care about Who Gets Married,” Insight on the News, 
August 27, 2001. 

32. Andrew Sullivan, Virtually Normal: An Argument about Homosexuality, 1995. 

33. Paul Olson, “Civil Union Study Gives Insight Into First Year Couples,” Out in 
the Mountains, January 2003. 

34. Don Feder, “Vermont Storms Citadel of Marriage,” Jewish World Review May 
1, 2000. 



201 



35. William N. Eskridge, “The Case for Same-Sex Marriage,” 1996. 

36. Michaelangelo Signorile, “Bridal Wave,” OUT, December-January 1994. 

37. Barbara Cox, “A (Personal) Essay on Same-Sex Marriage,” National Journal of 
Sexual Orientation Law, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 1995. 

38. Stanley Kurtz, “The End of Marriage in Scandinavia,” The Weekly Standard, 
February 2, 2004. 

39. Michael Powell, “For Some, A Sanitized Movement,” Washington Post, March 
31, 2004. 

40. Patrick Moore, “Gays: Assimilated and Asexual?” Los Angeles Times, January 
27, 2004. 

41. Fredrich U. Dicker, “Wipe Out Marriage, Legislator Says,” New York Post, 
April 8, 2004. 

42. Lisa Leff, “Divorce Deemed a Benefit of Gay Marriage,” Associated Press, 
May 22, 2004. 

43. Frank Langett, “Many Evangelicals Oppose Ban on Same-Sex Marriage,” 
Baltimore Sun, April 14, 2004. 

44. See http://www.metroweeklycom/feature/?ak= 1123 

45. “Netherlands OKs Gay Marriages,” Associated Press. 

46. “Civil Liberties At Risk through Ballot Initiatives,” ACLU press release, 
November 4, 1998. 

47. “Vermont's Civil Unions,” Gay-CivH-Unions.com, October 13, 2002. 

48. Jeffrey Gold, “New Jersey High Court Has Record of Support for Gay 
Rights,” Associated Press, June 27, 2002. 

49. Jessica Cantelon, “Homosexuals Seek More Progress in Battle over ‘Marriage 
Equality,’” CNSNews.com, July 8, 2002. 

50. Cindy Wockner, “Transsexual Marriage Is Ruled Valid,” London Telegraph., 
October 15, 2001. 

51. Goodridge v. Massachusetts Dept of Public Health, Docket #2001-1 647A 
(Suffolk Co. Sup. Ct, Mass.). 

52. Robert B. Bluey, “Author of Homosexual Marriage Ruling is Under Fire, 
Won't Budge,” CNSNews.com, April 28, 2004. 

53. Associated Press Raw Vote Totals, November 3, 2004. 

54. Walter Shapiro, “Presidential Election May Have Hinged on One Issue: Issue 
1,” USA Today, November 5, 2004 and Lawrence Kudlow, “A Virtuous Victory,” 
National Review, November 3, 2004. 

55. Kentucky Registry of Election Finance. 

56. Kelly Weise, “Big Campaign Spending Doesn't Translate to Victory on Moral 
Issues,” Associated Press, August 16, 2004. 

57. Carolyn Lochhead, “Gay Leaders Try to Reframe Struggle for Marriage 
Rights,” San Francisco Chronicle, November 10, 2004. 



202 



58. “Gay Marriage Lawsuit Filed,” Associated Press, November 9, 2004. 

59. “Lords Back Appeal on Transsexual Marriage,” Scotsman, January 22, 2002. 

60. “Ontario Province Will Not Appeal Marriage Ruling,” Canadian Press, July 17, 
2002. 

61. E-mail from Matt Daniels of the Alliance for Marriage to Alan E. Sears, July 
13, 2002. 

62. Patrick White, “Gay Civil Unions Are Legalized in Quebec,” Philadelphia 
Inquirer, June 9, 2002. 

63. Chris Wilson-Smith, “Lesbian Couple Seeks Divorce,” CNews, July 21, 2004. 

64. Chris Bull, “Northern Enlightenment,” The Advocate, September 17, 2002. 

65. “Lambda Legal Appeals Prudential Financial's Denial of Medical Insurance 
Coverage for Lesbian Retiree's 

66. Winston Churchill, “Speech at the Royal Academy, ’’April 30, 1938. 

67. “The Battle Over Same-Sex Marriage,” San Francisco Chronicle, March 21, 
2004. 

68. Phillip Mattier, Andrew Ross, “Newsom Hasn't Been Ad-Libbing,” San 
Francisco Chronicle, February 28, 2004. 

69. Stanley Kurtz, “‘Marriage’ Mayhem, National Review Online, May 20, 2004. 

70. Bruce Carroll, “A Fine Mess We're in Now,” Washington Blade , April 23, 

2004. 

71. John Derbyshire, “Here to Stay,” National Review Online, May 14, 2004. 

72. Dennis Prager, “Same-Sex Marriage: Good for Gays, Bad for Children,” 
Creators Syndicate, May 4, 2004. 

73. Jenifer Warren, “Capitol Gains for Gay Pols,” Los Angeles Times, December 

10 , 2001 . 

74. Don Feder, “Gay Marriage Undermines Institution,” Creators Syndicate, 
August 1, 2001. 

75. Matt Pyeatt, “Pennsylvania Supreme Court Extends Same-Sex Parental 
Rights,” CNSNews.com, January 8, 2002. 

76. Jane Meredith Adams, “Love vs. the Law,” Rosie, April 2002, p. 50. 

77. Ann Oldenburg, “For Rosie, Coming Out Is Merely about What's Right,” USA 
Today, March 11, 2002. 

78. Daniel Merkle, “More Americans Support Gay Adoption,” ABCNews.com, 
April 2, 2002. 

79. Katy Kelley, “Gay Parents Get Endorsed by Kids' Docs,” Associated Press, 
February 18, 2002. 

80. Robert Lemer, Ph.D, and Althea Nagai, Ph.D, No Basis: What the Studies Don't 
Tell Us about Same-Sex Parenting (Washington D.C.: Marriage Law Project, 2001), 
13-15. 

81. Ibid., 27. 



203 



82. Ibid., 28. 

83. Ibid., 53. 

84. Ibid., 75. 

85. Maggie Gallagher, “Homosexual Parenting Findings Based on Faulty 
Studies,” Universal Press Syndicate, February 5, 2002. 

86. See Judith Wallerstein, Julia Lewis and Sandra Blakeslee, “The Unexpected 
Legacy of Divorce: A 25 Year Landmark Study,” (New York, N.Y.: Hyperion 
Books, 2000). 

87. Kathryn Jean Lopez, “Another Divorce?” National Review Online, April 12, 
2002. 

88. Michael Gurian, Patricia Henley, and Terry Trueman, “Boys and Girls Learn 
Differently! A Guide for Teachers and Parents,” (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 
2001 ). 

89. George Archibald, “U.S. to Help U.N. Redefine Families,” Washington Times, 
April 22, 2002. 

90. Ibid. 

91. Peter LaBarbera, “Gores Give $50,000 to Promote ‘Gay’ Parenting,” Culture 
and Family Report, March 1, 2002. 

92. “Gores Court Booksellers for New Publication,” Associated Press, May 1, 
2002. 

93. Dennis Prager, “How the Nuclear Family Became Controversial,” Creators 
Syndicate, August 14, 2002. 

94. Inga Gilchrist, “Boy in Lesbian Tug-of-War,” Auckland Herald-Sun, January 
25, 2002. 

95. “Boy Officially Has 3 Parents,” WorldNetDaily.com, April 18, 2004. 

96. Mike Wendling, “British Study Links Single Parenthood, Social Problems,” 
CNSNews.com, February 11, 2002. 

97. James Doherty, “Anger as Lesbian Couple Wins Full Parental Rights,” 
Scotsman, April 8, 2002. 

98. Matt Pyeatt, “Deaf Lesbians Criticized for Efforts to Create Deaf Child,” 
CNSNews.com, April 2, 2002. 

99. Leslie Brady, “Judge's Ruling Pleases Supporters of Gay Rights,” Bergen 
County Record, March 12, 2003. 

100. Stanley Kurtz, “Heather Has Three Mommies,” National Review Online, 
March 12, 2003. 

101. Cynthia Hubert, “Birth of Change: Thanks to Medical and Legal Advances, 
Sadie Karpay-Brody Has Two Mothers Who Are Both Her Natural Parents,” 
Sacramento Bee, November 2, 2003. 

102. Tessa Mayes and Rosie Waterhouse, “Gay Couples Join Forces to Have 
Babies as Foursomes,” London Times, June 17, 2001. 

103. “Lesbian Couple Sentenced for Abusing Their 5 Sons,” 365Gay.com, 



204 



January 15, 2004. 

104. Bruce Kluger, “Kids Teach Us Lessons about Gays, Inclusiveness,” USA 
Today, August 27, 2001. 

105. See Andrew H. Friedman, Same-Sex Marriage and the Right to Privacy: 
Abandoning Scriptural, Canonical, and Natural Law Based Definitions of Marriage, 

35 Howard L.J. 173, 222-23 (1991). 

106. C. S. Lewis, The Four Loves (Harvest Books, 1960). 

107. George Dent, “The Defense of Traditional Marriage,” Journal of Law and 
Politics (University of Virginia, 2001), Vol. XV, No. 4, 590-591. 

108. Shaena Eagle, “College Freshmen More Politically Liberal Than in the Past, 
UCLA Survey Reveals.” See http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/heri.html. 

109. Marilyn Elias, “Divorce Is Likelier for Kids of Divorce,” USA Today, May 14, 
1991. 

110. David Popenoe, Life without Father (New York: The Free Press, 1996). 

111. Ibid. 

112. Elias, “Divorce Is Likelier.” 

113. Phillip Vassallo, “More Than Grades: How Choice Boosts Parental 
Involvement and Benefits Children,” Policy Analysis, Cato Institute, October 26, 
2000 . 

114. “Back to School 1999: National Survey of American Attitudes: Substance 
Abuse V: Teens and Their Parents,” National Center on Addiction and Substance 
Abuse at Columbia University, September 1999. See 
http://www.casacolumbia.org. 

115. Stanley Kurtz, “Deathblow to Marriage,” National Review Online, February 
5, 2004. 

Chapter Six — The Silence (and Silencing) of the Church 

1 Ed Magnuson, “In a Rage over Aids: A Militant Protest Group Targets the 
Catholic Church,” Time, December 25, 1989. 

2 Rosemary Harris, “Church Service Is Interrupted by Gay Activists Throwing 
Condoms,” Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph, November 8, 1993. 

3 Steph Smith, “Gay Catholics Refused Communion at Chicago Cathedral,” 
365Gay.com, May 31, 2004. 

4 Jonathan Peter and Jonathan Wynne-Jones, “Labour Minister Backs New ‘Gay 
Jesus’ Prayerbook,” London Guardian, March 11, 2002. 

5 Hanna Rosin, “Lesbian ‘Marriage’ Threatens to Split United Methodists,” 
Washington Post, June 16, 1999. 

6 Jason B. Johnson, “Methodist Clergy at Gay ‘Wedding’ Won't Be Punished,” 
San Francisco Chronicle, February 12, 2000. 

7 Allan Dobras, “Radical Methodist Church Ends Marriage Ceremonies in 



205 



Prohomosexual Protest,” Culture and Family Report, October 25, 2001. 

8 see 

http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/rankings/rankingTeaser.asp? 
CategorylD = 3Topic ID = 24. 

9 Mark I. Pinsky, “Longtime Orlando Pastor Resigns,” Orlando Sentinel, 

December 5, 2002. 

10. Sean Salai, “Assembly OKs Transsexual,” Washington Times, June 7, 2002. 

11. Rhonda Smith, “Trans Minister Seeks Local Methodist Appointment,” 
Washington Blade, June 14, 2002. 

12. Sean Salai, “Transsexual Methodist Minister Resigns,” Washington Times, July 

2 , 2002 . 

13. “Ask but Don't Tell,” World, July/ August 2002. 

14. “Lesbian Pastor Acquitted of Breaking Church Law,” 365Gay.com., March 

21, 2004. 

15. Laurie Goodstein, “Methodists Put Pastor on Trial for Declaring Herself a 
Lesbian,” New York Times, March 17, 2004. 

16. Marsha King, “Religions Divided over Gays in Clergy,” Seattle Times, July 1, 
2001. 

17. Hanna Rosin, “Lutherans Vote to Study Gay Issues: Activists Sought More 
Rapid Liberalizations,” Washington Post, August 14, 2001. 

18. Jaroslav Pelikan, ed., Luther's Words III (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing 
House, 1961), 255. 

19. Priest Defrocked Over Church Views,” Associated Press, September 6, 2002. 

20. Alison Appelbe, “Homosexual Unions Pose Challenge for Canadian Church 
Officials,” CNSNews.com, September 30,2002. 

21. Gary Rohrbough, “Barry Lynn Claims Roman Centurion in Bible Had Male 
Sex Slave,” CNSNews.com, October 3, 2002. 

22. Gary D. Harwood, “North Carolina Pastor: ‘Homosexuality is Not a Sin,”’ 
Baptist News, October 9, 2002. 

23. Michael Meade, “Catholic College Approves Gay-Straight Alliance,” 
365Gay.com, February 3, 2003. 

24. Matt Johns, “Was Jesus Gay?” 365Gay.com, December 25, 2003. 

25. Laurie Goodstein, “New Hampshire Episcopalians Choose Gay Bishop, and 
Conflict,” New York Times, June 8, 2003. 

26. David Gram, “Liturgy for Gay Marriages Developed in Vermont,” Associated 
Press, June 18, 2004. 

27. “Religious Left Strategizes on Homosexual ‘Marriage,’ MichNews.com, June 

22, 2004. 

28. “A Search for God's Welcome, Two Deeply Religious Women Discover a 
Church that Accepts Them as They Are,” Newsweek, March 20, 2000. 



206 



29. Ibid. 

30. Ibid. 

31. Martha Sawyer Allen, “New Perspective on the Divine is Attacked: ‘Re- 
Imagine’ Conference Criticized as Repudiation of Traditional Beliefs,” 
Minneapolis Star-Tribune, January 23, 1994. 

32. Richard N. Ostling, “No Mention of ‘Man’ in New Bible,” Associated Press, 
January 29, 2002. 

33. Stephen Bennett, “Was Jesus ‘Gay’?” WorldNetDaily.com, July 16, 2002. 

34. Carol Stenger, “On Being Christian and Gay.” See 
http://www.hrc.org/familynet/chapter.asp7article = 582. 

35. Josh Friedes, “Can Anyone Show Just Cause Why These Two Should Not Be 
Lawfully Joined Together?” New England Law Review, Spring 2004. 

36. Dennis Prager, “Who Supports Same-Sex Marriage?” Creators Syndicate, 
March 9, 2004. 

37. David D. Kirkpatrick, “Gay-Marriage Fight Finds Ambivalence from 
Evangelicals,” New York Times, February 28, 2004. 

38. Chuck Colson, “Why Bother? Why Some Christians Aren't Fighting Same-Sex 
‘Marriage,’” Breakpoint, June 23, 2004. 

39. Tony Campolo, 20 Hot Potatoes Christians Are Afraid to Touch (Nashville, TN: 
Thomas Nelson, 1988), 13. 

40. Ibid. 

41. Ibid., 16. 

42. Speech by Tony and Peggy Campolo at North Park College Chapel, February 
29, 1996. 

43. Ed Golder, “Campolo Shares His Convictions,” Grand Rapids Press, February 
20, 1993. 

44. Ibid. 

45. “Baptist Pastor Won't Respond to Challenge,” Maranatha Christian Journal, 
June 7, 2002. 

46. Catechism of the Catholic Church. United States Conference of Catholic 
Bishops, Article 6, The Sixth Commandment, 2nd edition, 2002. 

47. Ibid., No. 2357. 

48. Ibid., No. 2358. 

49. Ibid., No. 2359. 

50. George Weigel, The Courage to be Catholic (New York: Basic Books, 2002), 
109. 

51. Paul Likoudis, “New Ways Ministry Forges Ahead with Defiance,” Wanderer, 
March 21, 2002, 1. 

52. Michael Novak, “The Fall of the Progressive Church,” National Review 
Online, May 1, 2002. 



207 



53. Lawrence Morahan, “Lay Group Calls on UN to Sanction Vatican over Sex 
Abuse,” CNSNews.com, April 24, 2002. 

54. Bill Keller, “Is the Pope Catholic?” New York Times, May 4, 2002. 

55. Ibid. 

56. Pat Buchanan, “Anti-Catholicism at the New York Times,” Creators Syndicate, 
May 8, 2002. 

57. Jon Meacham, “Sex and the Church: A Case for Change,” Newsweek, April 
30, 2002. 

58. Ibid. 

59. Ann Coulter, “Should Gay Priests Adopt?” Universal Press Syndicate, March 

21 , 2002 . 

60. John Leo, “A Gay Culture in the Church,” U.S. News and World Report, June 
3, 2002, 16. 

61. Carl Ingram, “Panel Backs Child Abuse Bill,” Los Angeles Times, May 8, 2002. 

62. Lawrence Morahan, “RICO Sex Abuse Lawsuit Names Vatican as Defendant,” 
CNSNews.com, April 19, 2002. 

63. David Lazarus, “Church Problems Include Insurance: Scandal May Mean 
Higher Rates,” San Francisco Chronicle, April 24, 2002. 

64. Rod Dreher, “The Gay Question,” National Review, April 22, 2002. 

65. “‘NAMBLA’ Priest Arrested for Child Rape,” Fox News, May 2, 2002. 

66. Nick Madigan, “Sent to California on Sick Leave, Boston Priest Bought Racy 
Gay Resort,” New York Times, April 15, 2002. 

67. “‘NAMBLA’ Priest Arrested for Child Rape,” Fox News, May 2, 2002. 

68. David France, “Gays and the Seminary,” Newsweek, May 20, 2002. 

69. Ibid. 

70. Joel Mowbray, “Homosexuality a Factor in Sex Abuse by Priests,” copyright 
2002 Joel Mowbray. 

71. John Leo, “Of Rage and Revolution,” U.S. News and World Report, April 1, 
2002. 

72. Joyce Howard Price, “Predator Priests,” Washington Times, April 16, 2002. 

73. “The Church, Holy and Immortal, Shall Prevail!” Wanderer, April 25, 2002. 

74. NACDLGM 2002 National Conference. 

75. Dreher, “The Gay Question.” 

76. Paul Bedard, “Father Gay,” U.S. News and World Report, April 29, 2002. 

77. Allyson Smith, “Homosexual Groups Go into Spin Mode on Catholic Crisis,” 
Culture and Family Institute, April 25, 2002. 

78. Anthony DeStefano, “Loyal Catholics Defend Church,” USA Today, May 5, 
2002. 

79. “The Church, Holy and Immortal,” Wanderer. 



208 



80. Charles A. Donovan, “A Red Hat for a Stop Sign,” Washington Times, April 23, 
2002. 

81. “Letters Threaten 3 Priests,” Associated Press, October 1, 2002. 

82. Ken Garfield, “Lotz's Views on Gays Meets Dissent,” Charlotte Observer, May 
14, 2002. 

83. “Federal Judge Upholds Firing of Madison Firefighter,” Associated Press, 
June 23, 1999. 

84. Sworn testimony of Ralph Ovadal before the U.S. District Court for the 
Western District of Wisconsin, No. 96-C-0292-S. 

85. See http://www.skeptictank.org/firegay.html. 

86. News release: official statement by Dr. David Innes. See 
http://www.hsbchurch.org/riotl.html. 

87. della Cava, “Church Calls Acts ‘Disordered.’” 

88. Melanie Hunter, “Pastors Urge Apology from Senator for Remarks Regarding 
Marriage Amendment,” CNSNews.com, March 8, 2004. 

89. Kelli Samantha Hewett, “Two Men Preparing to Carry Crosses Charged with 
Disorderly Conduct,” The Tennessean, May 9, 2004. 

90. “Canada's Anti-Gay Violence Law Worries Some,” Fox News.com, May 18, 
2004. 

91. Lynn Vincent, “Remaining Silent,” World, May 8, 2004. 

92. Ibid. 

93. Ibid. 

94. “Senator Delivers Death Wish to Christian,” WorldNetDaily.com., February 
18, 2004. 

95. “Christian ‘Properly Convicted’ for ‘Anti-Gay’ Sign,” WorldNetDaily.com, 
January 15, 2004. 

96. Allison Ferrell, “Gay Rights Group: Church Broke Law,” Billings Gazette, May 
27, 2004. 

97. Robert B. Bluey, “Marriage Changes May Shake Churches' Tax Exemption,” 
CNSNews.com, February 23, 2004. 

98. Michael P. McConnell, “Pro-Gay Group Wants Police Chaplain Removed,” 

The Daily Tribune, October 16, 2002. 

99. “Religious Beliefs Underpin Opposition to Homosexuality,” The Pew Forum 
on Religion and Public Life,” see http://www.pewforum.org/docs/index.php? 
DocID = 37. 

100. Office of Strategic Services Research and Analysis Branch, “The Nazi Master 
Plan: The Persecution of Christian Churches,” July 6, 1945. See http://www- 
camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/. Also see Claire Hulme and Dr. 
Michael Salter, “The Nazi's Persecution of Religion as a War Crime: The OSS's 
Response within the Nuremberg Trials Process,” Rutgers Journal of Law and 
Religion, Vol. 3 No.l, 2001-2002. 



209 



101. Chuck Donovan, “At War with God,” Focus on the Family Citizen, August 
2002, 28-29. 

Chapter Seven — The Seduction of Corporate America 

1 Robert Knight and Kenneth L. Ervin II, “Can I Question Homosexuality? Don't 
Bank on It,” from The Other Side of Tolerance: Victims of Homosexual Activism, 
Family Research Council, 1997, 8. 

2 Ibid. 

3 The Human Rights Campaign (HRC), www.hrc.org. 

4 Ibid. 

5 See www.glcensus.org. 

6 Sally Kohn, “The Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual for Employee 
Benefits,” Policy Institute of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 6. See 
http : //www. ngltf . org/library/index. cfm . 

7 Amanda May, “Odd Couples,” New York Magazine, July 8, 2002. 

8 Human Rights Campaign press release, June 15, 2001. 

9 Kohn, 8. 

10. A. Stamborski, “Guests Add Spice to Emerson's Annual Meeting,” St Louis 
Post-Dispatch, February 7, 2001. 

11. Kohn, 8. 

12. See http://www.hrc.org. 

13. Lou Chibbaro Jr., “NGLTF Leaders Quit Amid Major Reorganization,” 
Washington Blade, March 7, 2003. 

14. The NGLTF Domestic Partnership Organizing Manual, 11. 

15. S. D. Myers, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 253 F3d 461 (9th Cir. 
2001 ). 

16. “Safe Space” flyer, published by Galaxe Pride at Work. See 
http://www.galaxe.world.xerox.com. 

17. Ibid., 26. 

18. Ibid., 1. 

19. Brian McNaught, Gay Issues in the Workplace (New York, N.Y.: St. Martin's 
Press, 1993), 10. 

20. Ibid. 

21. Personal conversation between American Express employee and Craig 
Osten. 

22. Information from the Ford Foundation Web site. See 
http://www.fordfoundation.org under “Peace and Social Justice: Governance 
and Society, 2001 Grants.” 

23. Ibid. 



210 



24. Ibid., under “Peace and Social Justice: Human Rights and International 
Cooperation, 2000 Grants.” 

25. Ibid., under “Peace and Social Justice: Human Rights and International 
Cooperation, 1999.” 

26. Ford Foundation advertisement in the Out and Equal Leadership Summit 
2000 Program. 

27. See http://www.hrc.org. 

28. Adam Pertman, “In Gay Market, Ads Target Big Dollars, Not Big Change,” 
Boston Globe, February 4, 2001. 

29. Ibid. 

30. Greg Jonnson, “More Advertisers Pursue Gay and Lesbian Customers,” St 
Louis Post-Dispatch, June 22, 2001. 

31. See http://www.hrc.org. 

32. “Hancock Changes ‘Adoption’ Commercial Again,” Chicago Tribune, 
September 22, 2000. 

33. Pertman, “In Gay Market.” 

34. Catherine Donaldson-Evans, “Fortune 500 Companies See Money in Gay 
Families,” FoxNews.com., May 26, 2004. 

35. Ibid. 

36. Jonnson, “More Advertisers.” 

37. Edward Epstein, “S.F. Warns Airlines on Partners Law: United Must Comply 
to Get Facility Lease,” San Francisco Chronicle, January 15, 1997 and “Airline 
Fears Global Effects from Domestic Partner Law:” Associated Press, January 28, 
1997. 

38. Donor Profile: United Airlines, Lambda Update, Summer 2000. 

39. Pertman, “In Gay Market.” 

40. Ira Berkow, “A Lesbian Group Protests Too Much,” New York Times, August 
5, 2002. 

41. Tom Weir, “WNBA Sells Diversity,” USA Today, July 24, 2001. 

42. A1 Dobras, “Women's Pro Teams Reach Out to Lesbians,” Culture and Family 
Report, July 11, 2001. 

43. Marc Fisher, “Caught in the Mystics' Net: Basketball Team's Diverse Fan Base 
Is in a League of Its Own,” Washington Post, August 4, 1998. 

44. Dobras, “Women's Pro Teams Reach Out.” 

45. Weir, “WNBA Sells.” 

46. Todd Richissin, “Lawsuit No Longer in the Lineup for Suns,” Baltimore Sun, 
January 12, 2000. 

47. Dobras, “Women's Pro Teams Reach Out.” 

48. Michael Clancy, “‘Church Night’ Drags Suns Into Gay Marriage Debate,” 
Arizona Republic, January 15, 2004. 



211 



49. Maya Bell, “Miami Beckons to Gays: Visit the Gay Riviera,” Orlando Sentinel, 
February 13, 2002. 

50. Ibid. 

51. Deborah Sharp, “Cities Come Out About Wooing Gays — and their Dollars,” 
USA Today, December 7, 2003. 

52. Caroline Wilbert, “Wanted: Gay Tourists, Atlanta to Follow Lead of Other 
Cities with Ad Campaign ,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 16, 2002. 

53. “Rolling Out the ‘Rainbow Carpet,’” World, June 1, 2002, p.12. 

54. Susan Jones, “Betsy Ross, Ben Franklin Part of ‘Gay Friendly’ Tourism 
Campaign,” CNSNews.com., November 14, 2003 and Sharp, op.cit. 

55. “Philadelphia Debuts First Commercial Aimed at Gay Travelers,” Associated 
Press, June 2, 2004. 

56. Sharp, op. cit. 

57. “News, Tips, and Bargains: Just the Facts: Gay Travelers,” Los Angeles Times, 
January 23, 2000. 

58. Ibid. 

59. Mike Schneider, “Christian Group to Show Gay Days Video at Disney 
Meeting,” Associated Press, February 12, 2002. 

60. Mike Schneider, “Gay Days Part of Disney Landscape,” Associated Press, 
June 3, 2000. 

61. Steve Otto, “A Weekend Visit to the Gay ‘90s,” Tampa Tribune, June 14, 
1999. 

62. Lawrence Morahan, “Domestic Partnership Bill Would Hurt Families,” 
CNSNews.com, April 17, 2001. 

63. Speech at Alliance Defense Fund Fall Briefing, September 5, 2001. 

Chapter Eight — The End of Tolerance (for Those Who Disagree) 

1 Steve Jordahl, “Employee Says Beliefs Prompted Firing,” Family News in Focus, 
May 9, 2002. 

2, “School Rejects Coach over Christian Beliefs,” Lincoln Daily Nebraskan. 

3 Ibid. 

4 Ibid. 

5 Christine Hall, “Coach Says Christian Beliefs Doomed His Chances for New 
Job,” CNSNews.com, June 13, 2002. 

6 Claude Adams, “Teacher Battles Union Over Published Views,” National Post, 
November 25, 2002. 

7 Phillips v. Missouri, Text of Complaint. 

8 “The Other Side of Tolerance,” Family Research Council, 1997, p. 14. 

9 Joyce Howard Price, “State Erred in Firing Worker Opposing Gay Foster 



212 



Parents,” Washington Times, July 22, 2001. 

10. “Federal Judge Dismisses Suit vs. ‘Fairness’ Ordinance,” Associated Press, 
March 21, 2001. 

11. Letter from Marilyn Schoonover, Specialist/Volunteer Department to 
Chaplaincy Coordinators and Volunteer Members, April 7, 1995. 

12. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 US 640 (2000). 

13. Charley Reese, “An Incredible Attack on the Boy Scouts,” Grand Rapids Press, 
September 4, 2000. 

14. Joyce Howard Price, “Scouts Lose United Way Funds over Gay Ban,” 
Washington Times, March 15, 2002. 

15. “House Rejects Effort to End Boy Scouts' U.S. Charter,” Associated Press, 
September 14, 2000. 

16. Michael J. Sniffen, “Attorney General Will Keep Federal Lands Open to 
Scouts,” Associated Press, September 3, 2000. 

17. Press release issued by Bar Association of San Francisco, July 23, 2002. 

18. Adam Liptik, “California Might Bar Judges From Scouts,” New York Times, 
December 21, 2002. 

19. Mike Thomas, “United Way Makes Giving Not Easy,” Orlando Sentinel, July 
23, 2001. 

20. Seth Lewis, “Massachusetts Mayor Boycotts Boy Scouts,” CNSNews.com, 
July 31, 2001. 

21. Ken Ellingwood, “Scouts' Use of San Diego Park at Issue,” Los Angeles Times, 
December 4, 2001. 

22. “Boy Scouts Statement in Response to City Settlement,” Desert Pacific 
Council of the Boy Scouts of America Press Release, January 8, 2004. 

23. Bill Hirschman, “Boy Scouts Sue to Stay in Schools,” Orlando Sentinel, 
December 6, 2000. 

24. Laura Parker, “Debate Simmers Over Scouts' Ban,” USA Today, June 15, 

2001. 

25. Olga R. Rodriguez, “Japanese Scout Troops Left in Lurch by Berkeley 
Councilman,” Associated Press, August 7, 2001. 

26. “Connecticut Can Bar Scouts as Charity,” Associated Press, July 30, 2002. 

27. Robyn Suriano, “Doctors Say Scout Rules Damage Health of Gays,” Orlando 
Sentinel, June 20, 2001. 

28. David Limbaugh, “Boy Scouts Still Under Heavy Fire,” Creators Syndicate, 
June 4, 2004. 

29. Annette Scalise, “On the Recruiting Trail, The Boy Scouts Extend Their 
Efforts in Ethnic Communities,” Newsday, May 24, 2002. 

30. See http://www.ageofconsent.com. 

31. David Kupelian, “Pedophile Priests and Boy Scouts,” WorldNetDaily.com, 



213 



May 8, 2002. 

32. Coulter, “Should Gay Priests Adopt?” 

33. “Scout Leader Pleads Guilty to Sodomy,” Associated Press, May 8, 2002. 

34. Brief of Amici Curiae Public Advocate and others. Dale v. Boy Scouts of 
America, 734 A.2nd 1196 (N.J. 1999) (No. 99-699). Also see Steve Geissinger, 
“Scouts Remove 1800 Scoutmasters for Suspected Abuse Over Two Decades,” 
Associated Press, October 14, 1993. 

35. Letter from Leland Stevenson, co-recording secretary, NAMBLA, to Ben Love, 
Chief Scout Executive, Boy Scouts of America (Nov. 1992). See 
http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/archives/livelybites/3-21-2001.html. 

36. Ken McGuire, “Local Boy Scout Council Takes Another Stand for Diversity,” 
Associated Press, June 10, 2002. 

37. Ibid. 

38. Pedreirav. Kentucky Baptist Homes for Children, Inc., 186 F. Supp. 2d 757 
(W.D. Ky. 2001). 

39. Eyal Press, “Faith Based Furor,” New York Times Magazine, April 1, 2001, p. 
62. 

40. Mary Leonard, “Judge Sees No Bias in Firing of Lesbian,” Boston Globe, July 
25, 2001. 

41. Chris Poynter, “Baptists' Homes' Firing of Lesbian Is Upheld,” Louisville 
Courier-Journal, July 25, 2001. 

42. Ibid. 

43. Peter Smith, “Baptist Homes Prepares to Do without State Money,” Louisville 
Courier-Journal, November 15, 2001. 

44. “Salvation Army Memo Cites Deal with Bush,” Washington Post, July 11, 
2001. 

45. Chris Kenning, “Gay Rights Group Questions YMCA Member Rules,” 
Louisville Courier-Journal, June 7, 2002. 

46. Lynn Vincent, “Brothers Up in Arms,” World, October 26, 2002. 

47. Ibid. 

48. “Salvation Army Gives Up City Money,” Associated Press, July 2, 2002. 

49. Oubai Shabandar, “Salvation Army to Lose Funding over Domestic Partner 
Flap,” CNSNews.com, June 20, 2002. 

50. “U.S. Court of Appeals Strikes Down Public School's Hate Speech Code,” 
AFA press release, February 15, 2001. 

51. Joanne Laucius, “Bible Had Role in Exposing Gays to Hatred,” Ottawa 
Citizen, June 20, 2001. 

52. Owens v. Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission). 

53. Debra Fieguth, “Justices Affirm Ban on Homosexual Conduct at Christian 
University,” Christianity Today, July 9, 2001. 



214 



54. John Leo, “Stomping on Free Speech,” Universal Press Syndicate, April 12, 
2004. 

55. Rich Peters, “Schools Which Do Not Teach GLBT Sexuality Discriminate,” 
365Gay.com, January 7, 2003. 

56. Patrick Goodenough, “Videos on Homosexuality: Free Speech or Hate 
Speech?” CNSNews.com, March 12, 2003. 

57. Elaine O'Connor, “Edict on Gay Weddings: Do Them or Split,” see www. 
canada.com. 

58. Bob Kellogg, “Sweden Moves to Criminalize Opposition to Homosexuality,” 
Family News in Focus, June 10, 2002. 

59. “Swedish Pastor Sentenced to One Month's Jail for Offending 
Homosexuals,” ENI News, June 2004. 

60. “Lesbian Kiss Comment Costs Firm,” News.com.au, July 3, 2002. 

61. “France to Outlaw Homophobia,” News.com.au, June 23, 2004. 

62. Patrick Goodenough, “UK Christian Group Challenged by Homosexuals 
Keeps Charity Status,” CNSNews.com, August 23, 2001. 

63. “UKGovemment Supports Repealing Gay Law,” Associated Press, January 7, 
2003. 

64. “Dutch Will Not Prosecute Pope for Antigay Remarks,” Reuters, July 18, 
2000 . 

65. “Homosexual Leader Vows to ‘Torture’ Opponents,” WorldNetDaily.com, 
April 30, 2004. 

66. E. J. Montini, “Rally Crowd Takes a Vow to Love, Honor, Abhor,” The 
Arizona Republic, May 18, 2004. 

67. “Can Doctors Refuse to Artificially Inseminate Lesbians Because of Religious 
Beliefs?” Harmity and Colmes, February 18, 2003. 

68. David Limbaugh, “Tolerance is a Two-Way Street,” Creators Syndicate, 
February 22, 2003. 

69. See http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/equality/bertha_wilson.htm. 

70. “Becket Fund Warns Clergy of Amendment to State's Hate Crimes Law for 
Preaching About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity,” see 
ww.becketfund.org. 

71. Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball, 176. 

72. Mike Wendling, “Group Wants God Left Out of European Constitution,” 
CNSNews.com, February 4, 2003. 

73. Leo, April 12, 2004, op.cit. 

74. “U.N. Group in ‘Showdown with Religion,’” WorldNetDaily.com, August 8, 
2003. 

75. Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball, 176. 

Chapter Nine — The Full Weight of the Government 



215 



1 Guerin, “The Politics of Sexuality.” 

2 Susan Jones, “Sexual Freedom Activists Target ‘Archaic, Unjust’ Sex Laws,” 
CNSNews.com., June 1, 2004. 

3 Guerin, “The Politics of Sexuality.” 

4 Gina Holland, “Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Major Gay Rights Case,” 
Associated Press, March 27, 2003. 

5 To access Lambda's brief on-line go 

to:http://www.lambdalegal.org/binarydata/LAMBDA_PDF/pdf/177.pdf. 

6 Kristin Hays, “Case of Two Texas Men Turns Into Major Gay Rights Battle 
Before the Supreme Court,” Associated Press, March 23, 2003. 

7 Carolyn Lochhead, “Top Court to Rule on ‘Most Important Gay Rights Case,’ 
Texas Law Forbids Sodomy Only by Same-Sex Couples,” San Francisco Chronicle, 
March 26, 2003. 

8 Bowers v. Hardwick, 1986, Burger C.J. concurring opinion. 

9 Guerin, “The Politics of Sexuality.” 

10. Ibid. 

11. Ibid. 

12. Thomas Elias, “California Now the Best Place for Gays: Governor Tries to 
Foster Tolerance, Hope,” Washington Times, December 6, 1999. 

13. Text of AB1 475. 

14. Text of SB225. 

15. “Senate OKs Measure Allowing Tax Break for Nontraditional Families,” 
Sacramento Bee, May 30, 2002. 

16. Press release from the California Alliance for Pride and Equality, March 19, 
2003. 

17. Robert Salladay, “Gay Legislators Step Up Push for Rights: 9 Bills Seek to 
Extend Protections,” San Francisco Chronicle, March 25, 2003. 

18. Press release from the Campaign for California Families, March 20, 2003. 

19. Jason Pierce, “Coming Soon to Philadelphia,” CNSNews.com, May 17, 2002. 

20. Rachel Gordon, “S.F. Board OKs Transgender Rights: Mayor is Expected to 
Sign Toughest Anti-Bias Law of Its Kind in the Nation,” San Francisco Examiner, 
December 13, 1994. 

21. “Rhode Island Becomes Third State to Ban Transgender Discrimination,” 
Associated Press, July 19, 2001. 

22. Ibid. 

23. Martha Kleder, “Transsexuality: New Jersey's Newest ‘Disability,’” Culture 
and Family Report, July 11, 2001. 

24. “Civil Rights for the Transgendered,” New York Times, May 1, 2002. 

25. Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, “Transgender Law Making Strides,” Fox News, August 



216 



6 , 2002 . 

26. Jim Bums, “Ventura Proclamation a ‘Celebration of Homosexuality,’ Says 
Profamily Group,” CNSNews.com, April 10, 2002. 

27. “Gay Display in Capitol Rotunda,” Capitol Resource Institute Press Release, 
June 11, 2002. 

28. “Quebec Chief Justice Admits Courts Recreating Canadian Social and Moral 
Norms,” LifeSiteNews.com, May 4, 2004. 

29. Ellen Nakashima, “With Gay Pride Observances, a Balancing Act,” 

Washington Post, June 12, 2002. 

30. Ibid. 

31. Christopher Heredia, “Gay Man Earns Envoy Position without Discord, 
Activists Praise Selection for Romanian Post,” San Francisco Chronicle, September 
24, 2001. 

32. Martha Brant, “A New GOP?” Newsweek, December 24, 1991. 

33. Jerry Seper, “Bush Backs Policy Against Bias,” Washington Times, April 2, 
2004. 

34. John Files, “Study Says Discharges Continue Under ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell,’” 
New York Times, March 24, 2004. 

35. U.S. Military Has Lowest Gay Dismissal Rate Since ‘96 — Group,” Dow Jones 
Newswires, March 26, 2003 

36. Joe Kovacs, “Oregon County Bans All Marriage Licenses,” 
WorldNetDaily.com, March 25, 2004. 

37. Kelly Beaucar Vlahos, “Feds Take Aim at Taxpayer-Funded AIDS Prevention 
Programs,” Fox News, January 7, 2002. 

38. Robert Stacy McCain, “CDC Links to ‘Pro-Sex’ Teen Site,” Washington Times, 
March 7, 2002. 

39. “Leather Pride Proclamation Disgraces City, Critic Says,” Portland Oregonian, 
September 19, 2002. 

40. Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983). Opinion by Burger, 
C. J. Joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, and O'Connor. 
Rehnquist, J. filed a dissent. 

41. Allison Ferrell, “Gay Rights Group: Church Broke Law,” Billings Gazette, May 
27, 2004. 

42. Robert B. Bluey, “Marriage Changes May Shake Churches' Tax Exemption,” 
CNSNews.com, February 23, 2004. 

43. Adam Clymer, “Senate Panel Moves to Block Bias against Gays at Work, ’’New 
York Times, April 25, 2002. 

44. See www.smrb.com. 

45. See www.glcensus.org. 

46. Ronald Alsop, “Are Gay People More Affluent Than Others? Advertisers Say 
Yes, Citing Surveys, But Activists Call Data Overstated,” Wall Street Journal, 



217 



December 30, 1999. 

47. Lou Chibbaro Jr., “Log Cabin Questions Need for END A, Angering Activists, 
GOP Lawmakers,” Washington Blade , May 13, 2002. 

48. “ACLU Fact Sheet: Employment Nondiscrimination Act,” see 
http://www.aclu.org/issues/gay/endafact.html. 

49. Roger Clegg, “Bad ENDA,” National Review Online, May 9, 2002. 

50. Ibid. 

51. Clymer, “Senate Panel Moves.” 

52. “Dutch Will Not Prosecute Pope for Antigay Remarks,” Reuters, July 18, 
2000 . 

53. Bob Egelko, “S.F. Reaction to Antigay Ads Ruled OK,” San Francisco 
Chronicle, January 17, 2002. 

54. Porterfield, “Christians a ‘Hate Group.’” 

55. Ibid. 

56. Martin Niemoller, “Speaking Up for Each Other.” 

Chapter Ten — Where Do We Go from Here? 

1 Letter from Diann Luebker to Alan Sears, April 17, 2002. Used with 
permission. 

2 Speech at Focus on the Family, October 31, 2001. 

3 Steve Freiss, “Arizona Republic's ME is Highest-Ranking ‘Out’ Editor,” Editor 
and Publisher, March 29, 2002. 

4 Peter Jensen, “Fear of Criticism Has Made Christians Silent Instead of 
Significant,” Sydney Morning Herald, May 11, 2002. 

Appendix 1 — Background Brief 

1 Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983). Opinion by Burger, 
C. J., joined by Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens and O'Connor. 
Rehnquist, J. filed the sole dissent. 

2 Changes such as voting, property rights, inheritance, and marriage law have 
occurred; however, there are still legitimate distinctions made such as men and 
women's roles in the military, separate public bathrooms, etc. 

3 Green v. Kennedy, 309 F. Supp. 1127, appeal dism'd sub nom. Cannon v. 
Green, 398 U.S. 956 (1970). 

4 Revenue Ruling 71-447, 1971-2 Cum. Bull 230. (Rehnquist, J dissented from 
Jones decision, in part because the IRS and lower courts made these 
determinations rather than Congress through legislation.) 

5 461 U.S. 591-2. 

6 461 U.S. 594-5. 



218 




In The Homosexual Agenda Alan Sears and Craig Osten expose tho goals of tho 
homosexual movement and its rising legal activism. The liomosoxual agenda has as 
its primary aim to "trump - the rights of all other groups, especially those of people 
of faith. Sears and Osten provide well-documented proof that America is not only 
becoming moro tolerant of homosexual behavior, it is becoming loss tolerant of 
thoso who disagree with the lifestyle. 

"The Alliance Oefense Fund ... is doing a wonderful work m defending 
religious bberty and preserving the rights of Christian people." 

-Or. James Dobson. auikoaawo iouxw* rocusoa txf uaaiit 

"The message of this book is must-reading lor every concerned American ’ 

-tut uuBtll Bright wukwaawdciuuwwiw. campus c*u&AOCfo«adu*i 

"This book could bo the instrument that will reverse the tide of influence 
that this devastating vice is having on American society today." 

0. James Kennedy, mamm uc si «mo a mmsti a. cowu wu rn utiwaii cmuwch 

n tAUKRQMt KBBOA 

"I commend Alan Sears and Craig Osten for having the courage 
to ted the truth about this highly destructive movement" 

-Marlin Maddoux. usa raoo 

'This may well be the most significant religious liberty issue of our times." 

-R. Albert Mohler Jr., auinoi as:> pa£sidiwt jm soutkwii papist rxtoioaicAt ummaitt 

"This ground-breaking book destroys the myth that homosexual activists 
simply want equal rights . . A must-read lor every pastor." 

-Alfred Poirier. Simon pasioh accxv mountain cowmuk.iv ciiuhcm buhncs. mok iawa 

"This book is courageously but compassionately written" 

- rw urn Adrian Rogers, Aim-ox add sanax pasto«. buuwi lAjrmr o- .ach vi units. rixtusstr 



ALAN SEARS is the president CEO. and general counsel of the Alliance Oefense 
Fund, an organisation dedicated to the delonse of refcg<ous freedom, the saocbty of 
human hf8. and traditional values. 

CRAIG OSTEN is the Vice-President of Creative Services for tho Alliance Defense Fund. 



US 5 



S 



J S'J * 






219